administrative hearing they told mr. rahaim or thomas de santo mentioned earlier they were to come to the tac -- what is it? >> [inaudible] >> compliance and amendments committee and everyone agreed it would be the next wednesday, the procedural notice and they told him so mr. ionin didn't show up at that hearing and he was taking over lulu wong's position and acting agent for mr. john rahaim. he knew about it all along so the order went to john rahaim. he was in receipt of it so to say he wasn't given notice or ability to be heard wasn't the case at all. he cheese people to hand. >> >> handle it and they didn't handle it at all. this is john rahaim. this is from the bay

guardian of last year. planning in san francisco is a blood sport. he's talking about war here. the war was to push the project forward and deny me -- >> my question is what documents double haven't been produced to you at this time? >> well, the search terms weren't completed in their intriernity. the closest was the second cd i was given but put [inaudible] avenue in quotes which means has to be [inaudible] avenue and only return those documents but who spells out avenue. it was so minimal. if they returned the search terms in the entirety this would have been settled but now the project is approved. these are my records request to view files so it wasn't possible i missed anything. i was there a lot, at the planning

department, and i needed to keep track of what was going on. here is a letter after the second compliance and amendments committee -- no, the education outreach committee, where i made this request of the names they needed the files for and what the search terms were and what the search period was because they were trying to say nothing before 2012 because the servers -- they changed email servers but you migrate your old accounts and i had proof of that from the log file and there were searches prior to 2003 in that log file, and so none of that was making sense. they were trying to keep these specific documents. this is not like a gross negligence of the planning department. they don't know how to comply with the requests. i talk to a lot of people and "i always get what i want" so that means there is nothing to hide

in your case and this is how they deal with it because i was informed anything post of the sunshine complaints i would have had to make another one for the months prior so in this letter this is request for immediate disclosure and bear in mind, and i am relying this to him for an urgent reply. nothing. i don't hear from him at all. mr. ionin was adamant to the sunshine task force and missed the first hearings and we have given everything. here's an example of the non substantive email and in the packet. my first email saying you have the supervisor, the direct supervisor on the cover of the mitigated declaration so that was later revised and wasn't taken care of

so you have a error on the information and they can't produce that email and they won't produce that email and this is from the hearing. supervisor kim, two things i am concerned about. one, i am concerned that you don't keep with the file every piece of communication associated with the matter. the clerk of the board is required to keep it with the file. i know the technology exist s and the planning department is capable of that. that concerns me. here is me to l u.d lu wong. can you have an it search it and the planners weren't complying and this is how we went through six emails. i emailed him before i knew who he was and they got the message back then asking for a continuance of the hearing because i couldn't get the case files i needed so

there was plenty of notice. he had plenty of opportunity. these are emails and compliance and after exhausting all of these measures and deprived us and the neighborhood association of all the public records we needed all along. >>i think we heard enough from you on this question and understand your position on it. >> i have a question though. >> yeah go ahead. >> i am understanding the timelines. what documents were you looking for or what are you still looking for that you need? >> it would help me greatly to have -- by statute i need everything that was given and so i'm having a hard time still getting all of the information. i am getting information through bits of discovery from the city

attorney assigned to judicial review but i believe there is more because he's not returning that search properly either and i have to make a motion for log files. i mean it's really like a game. >> okay. what do you think you're going to find that is going to be beneficial to your case or your argument? presumably you're against this project or you have concerns about this project, so what is it that you don't have yet that you need? >> i have for you copies of the emails i got last week after your report says mr. ringel believes has gotten everything. i was surprised and i spent hours talking to her and pages. these are emails date stamp friday the city and county of san francisco that the project went to the mta. we were told it didn't. that reporters request for information -- i

could have contactd that reporter -- i mean this is definitely public information. >> so you're still looking for information that's in the files that can support your argument for your point of view on this project? that's all i am trying to get at? >> there is a projigz in the california environmental quality act, public resources code that says the information dition closure provisions are so central to ceqa that a violation of them is to be considered a violation of ceqa even if a different outcome may not have occurred. >> so -- >> that's important to me. i wanted to come here because i believe you are the ones -- they are reluctant and eight to nine -- which is that group and over the six hearings they changed their mind and the more noncompliance they saw and the

order of determination they saw and mr. rahaim has knowledge of that and it would help to have something -- they didn't comply. >> where is the planning process now that this project has been approved? i am sure you could file an appeal. i don't know. >> [inaudible] >> point of order. >> you cannot raise a point of order. you're not a member. >> i cannot? >> you cannot raise a point of order. >> i'm asking a legal question. [gavel] >> you're not allowed to ask why -- >> the sunshine ordinance says you cannot ask why he needs it. >> i don't mind talking about it though. >> fine. i don't need to know that then. >> no -- >> but the project has been approved at this point by the planning commission? >> i went through every administrative possibility and i am here today with you and i thank you for the continuous

last week. last week i hurt my foot from skate boarding and couldn't be here and was in the hospital. i would have been on crutches. it was pretty bad. this is so important to me and i am trying to correct something -- yeah, i shouldn't have gotten this involved with it but the case file should have been right the first or second or third time. i don't know how many people are referred to after six hearings. they would have been had a seventh if i wasn't at the end of my rope and i would have been in court and all i am asking for is proper review for my neighborhood but when there are shadow studies and not discussed it's not innocent. there is something they were trying to hide and they hid it. it's emotional to me because it's a really long road. >>i think you had more than enough time. >> thank you.

>> you're welcome. any comments? any motions? >> just one last comment and then i will have a motion and that is i think people of san francisco owe a debt to you mr. ringel because for going and pushing this rock up this mountain as you have because i think for all of the people like yourself that get to this points there have been probably hundreds that have given up, and haven't -- excuse me, have not been given the information that they're entitled to under the california public records act and under the san francisco sunshine act, and it seems that you're bringing this to the attention of the city as you

>> they know what the requirements are and they and i'm going to tell you one thing more about mr. ionin . two years ago i attended a sunshine ordinance task force hearing where he claimed in the hearing that the department handed over everything that was available. they found him in violation

because they didn't believe him and i happened to walk out in the hall after the end of the case and heard him say the following to the complainant "i know what documents you want. i know where they are and i'm going to make sure you don't get them." he then turned around and saw me and surreyed off. he's a liar. that's one of the positions he's in the position he's in and that's why he's here. >> i want to calk the ethics commission on this next speaker. >> >> [gavel] i will have you removed. >> point of order. >> good even. david pilpel peeking as an idea. i have a lot to say and i am sure it will be used against me. >> absolutely. >> i would like to proceed.

upon reviewing the staff recommendation i am inclined to agree that mr. rahaim didn't violate a violation of the ordinance. i generally agree that the department was delayed in their production of records. there are clearly some problems that i see with this and you have discussed a lot of them already. the order -- >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. can i have my opportunity to speak please? >> every public speaker can speak and if the audience is silence. >> [inaudible] >> if you continue to ask noise i will ask you to leave. >>i am repeat i am speaking as an individual and not representing the task force at this time. the order of determination they reviewed

found the department committed a violation. i'm not sure if that's the best way to proceed. i'm not sure that departments in that way violate the ordinance. i think it's individuals who either produce records or don't. i'm not sure how we expect -- or how that can be fixed at this point. this really does resemble in my mind the [inaudible] versus rec park hearing a few months ago. you could certainly find a violation. maybe that sends a message but i'm not sure if the point is to send a message or to achieve compliance and i'm not sure if other than the person to whom a records request is directed if someone else is held responsible for their conduct if that actually sendies the right

message with compliance. i wanted to address the commissioner's question about training. we held a number of hearings about departments and their policies and procedures regarding records requests. i was intended to invite mr. ionin to talk about the planning department and their policies and procedures. we don't do specific training -- >> [inaudible] >> if you have questions i can answer on that. the one thing i didn't see in the file was the actual referral letter from the task force. there were other documents from the task force which were helpful in collection but i didn't see the actual referral letter. in summary you could find a violation if you believe that the facts and the law support that. i think that

there are still issues about whose named and whether the individual that receives the request or the supervisor or the department head and there maybe distinctions with a small or medium or large department. i think it would be difficult to believe that the department head in all departments is involved with all requests. if have questions i can answer them otherwise thank you. >> any other public comments? >> can i comment again? >> you've already had your opportunity to comment. >> i know just to amend my complaint. >> any discussion among the -- all right. there's a motion. you want to read the motion

again? or commissioner keane do you want to state it again. >> yes. i move that we find the director john rahaim violated the san francisco administrative code sunshine ordinance section 67-point two one a. as custodian of the records he didn't without unreasonable delay permit a public record to be expertd and examined. i am use the statutory language mr. chair. >> [inaudible] and non willful. >> i mean i second that motion and i agree with it. i think mr. pilpel has raised some very important issues about who we find responsible in these kinds of cases as we've had discussion

about this on several occasions, but in this case i have to say i do agree with mr. hertz and in the end we have no recourse other than to hold the director of any department ultimately responsible. i mean i think that is true that the buck stops there and to try and to decisive and unspool the thread of who rejected or didn't do a timely response i think can get a little too complicated. i think the simple thing is that a executive director of any department is responsibility, end of story, whether it's willful or non willful is the other matter that we can certainly discuss. >> the purpose of the public records statute is to get access to documents and guess the

frustration i am feeling is even if we make this motion and we pass it, and we send a letter to the head of the planning department how does that get documents produced? i mean how do we -- >> can i respond? if you consult the ethics commission's guidelines in section 3c it discusses the options that the commission has in the event it finds a violation whether willful or non willful. i can read those to you if you like. there are three. one is that the respondent cease and desist the violation and produce the public records or the second option the executive director to post on the website the commission's finding that the respondent violated the sunshine ordinance and the third option the executive director issue a

letter to the respondent and the appointing authority or the mayor of the violation and those are the options in if you find a violation whether willful or non willful. >> so if we vote in favor of commissioner keane's motion the next step is make a recommendation as it to which option should be adopted? >> included in the motion. >> pardon me? >> included in the motion. >> that's what i am saying. do we include it in the motion? >> yeah. >> to be clear you could do one or all three. i think you faced picking one. >> considering that do you want to make a new motion and i will allow the public to comment on. >> 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 a