to the board of supervisors to request an independent audit or we disagree we'll not make a recommendation so one of the two. >> i'd adapt commissioner andrews first recommendation that we agree because if this has been done and money has gone back which should have been for photo and it illegal went to someone other than going to the city which should get the money it should be exposed so i would agree with commissioner andrews that we agree with the city attorney that the board of supervisors requiring an independent audit to see whether or not anything of those things happened. >> can i comment. i don't know the case this grand

jury is talking about >> they're not talking about it. >> it was handed by the district attorney notice the ethics commission the law allows us to reduce certain forfeitures. when candidates and captions accept illegal contributions and bring it to our attendance we allow them to return the money >> you're not making sense in regards to my skew does he know of particular cases and he said no, he doesn't know of any you've got something nickel and dimed obviously but not what the grand jury had in mind we're going to respond to something

you know about that you have in mind - >> so. >> didn't makes sense we've got to respond to the grand jury. >> well, i request the commissioners eliminate the response entirely. >> i agree but add the language that commissioner andrews is suggesting that there be an audit if there are any of those improper actions that have occurred with the money went back it be found out about. >> if i think so they weren't improper ways the commission had not acted so there was discretion rather than being for photo to the city the forfeiture was waved so nothing ways done illegal as i understand what's

being said but so i would i think i would prefer at least from might have point of view we just not respond if the grand jury didn't ask us to respond and let the district attorney respond, however, he may want. >> well - we could i would amend it and say the commission who are acknowledged doesn't know of campaign contributions but agrees with the recommendation an independent by the city attorney audit be conducted. >> i'd accept that language for a motion. >> excuse me. >> i take our motion

specifically. >> i move that we remove the current response and replace while the commission doesn't have acknowledge of independent campaign contributions we recommend the board of supervisors request an independent audit by the city attorney. >> second. >> all right. public comment on the proposed >> i'm bob. i like the fact your frankly going to amend this and get rid of what seems clearly convoluted draft response. i want to suggest it it might be worth in the future getting a education and revisiting the policy decision. here's why in the draft wording

it seems like it is inconsistently e inconsistent that you say prior to my action taken by the commission and then i say the commission may provide for the waiver of reduction in staff knows about it by the commission hadn't had it on their agenda it can be returned. there's the problem here that when i was on the commission we are that given the understanding the wording of setting up the commission there's not a distinction between the commission you folks and staff so the public self-necessarily know but staff sometimes has authority to do things in the name of the commission that's where you're talking about in your draft prior to my action that's an active verb the commission can provide for a

specific condition this does not say - there's inconsistentcy in the policy whatever the situation presented itself so you can have a better understanding and better deal with possible audits. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> larry ambitious u bush from the civil grand jury the august minutes should there was never a vote taken but a memo in march of 2008 which outlines policy statements one was were there an inve inve

invert acceptance that money was returned but there will be a signed stipulation in the candidates saying they've accepted a contributions that was not acceptable. we found no record as required. i'll further state that policy was to remain in effect until the commission overturned it it quo was not reviewed since march 2008 and i will point out it was a policy statement and not a regulation therefore it never went to the board of supervisors it was entirely in house. i suggest as the gentleman said you revisit the entire policy and see if this is something you want to take a look at >> thank you. >> commissioner. ray i totally

agree with both of the prior speakers any waiver to be a position where the commission considers it where anyone in the public can hear the decision and make comments and be done. this is basically, if you read the recommendation it is an admission we've done this in the past and an admission this is our blanket policy. and that's not the way things should be done it leaves basically what it is i'm a corporate attorney and i say well, let's give the donation and it small business catches us or if the person that gets the donation realize it is one thing weigh take it back with no penalty it drops the bar to a social level that anybody can do

it and suffer no consequences. those kinds of things i understand if you have a small campaign janey gray device to run for the board of supervisors and makes an illegal contributions and you have a meagerly and say it was? an intention and she didn't have the resources it understand what she was doing let's wave. that i understand that but we're talking about big corporate donations as the members of the grand jury said in instances where a company said you donate the money and we'll reimburse you we're not talking about somebody who did it inverting but in those cases there should be a clearing before any of the

money is returned to them. the reason it should go to the city? first place is there's a penalty for not following the law if it's simply a blanket statement you break the law he correct it before we catch it you get our money back it's totally against public policy and totally unethnical. >> is there any public comment? you know, i want to encourage the commissioners to speak into the microphones when their discussing over and over those recommendations the members of the public can hear. i would a recommendation 2 is directed not to the commission i will urge the commission just to agree with the recommendations

of the grand jury and this is the city attorney established an independent audit to see if there's improper conduct either by troishth or commissioners or other staff. >> i will call a motion. commissioner keane >> yes. i'd rather than, okay. can you hear me? just so it doesn't get lost? shuffle could someone make a not in our next meeting we do revisit that august 2008 policy that's being talked about having to do with the matter of money that doesn't have to be forfeited to the city certain

things have happened i'd like to take note of that now. and we won't have a discussion on it >> can we ask the staff to make a note to put it on the agenda that we revisit the august 2008 policy to which is referenced i want to call the motion. yeah. all in favor, say i. to the amendment to finding in recommendation number 2 all in favor, say i. i >> opposed? it was unanimous and the record

should reflect the chair is in charge >> i express any sincere apologizes to my fellow commissioners, i miss calendared it was k4r5ur7b9d when i was out of the country my sincere apologizes and i'll get caught up and will be here for the rest of the meeting. we'll take a 5 minute break.

>> we're back in session regarding the grand jury report. when we took the break were were on finding number 3. commissioners any comments >> yes. mr. chair this is another one i don't understand why we're answering it is way we're answering it i would change to we agree a broad citizens right to enforce those lose will make sure the laws are enforced this is an apple pie

motherhood type of statement we disagree that's our answer why do we disagree that with a broader citizens statement that the laws will be enforced any kind of broadening of the power to enforce ethnical aforementioned in our socket to the good whether by a right of action to citizens or anyone we should agree. the recommendation that this can be done by the board of supervisors enacting a particular version that gives the folks the right like a

private attorney general action to enforce the award of attorney's fees that's an incentive for citizens to help out in ethnical matters and if the jury has found that is good and that the board of supervisors should be asked to do that i think we should join in with them >> other comments in the commissioners? >> there's some legal wasn't proposition j struck down by the court and there's a question of whether or not that clause was controlling. >> you're right we should take out as provided as was provided by proposition j it sets the thing up for an attack in regard to the los angeles court

decision 14 or fierceness year ago bused the general notation we should agree with them that as to that finding that apple pie and motherhood finding and agree that the board of supervisors should attempt to set up something in corners with that citizens right of action. i'm not all that converging with the particular reasons why j was struck down because of having something like that or other things in that but tang taking out the language that we're you're going prop j as part of the solution we ought to agree with that >> i think what the court held is that the sharing of penalties

with the filer may not be legal. i know there are chisel blowers that provide those kinds of things but anyway, when you say asking the board of supervisors to enhance a right of of action is there a general right of action at the present time for someone unless they she show personal injury >> i have no idea but if the board of supervisors were to see fit to take a shot anothers passing something like this and it were to go through the courts again maybe it will be upheld.

prop j was struck down by a district court or a lower court in los angeles about 14 or 15 years but was never really contested beyond that so we're not talking about prop j distribution one that was done by the u.s. superior court >> may i make a suggestion i agree with commissioner keane that the portion of finding 3 that basically says we should do with whatever we can to enforce the ethnics laws should be agreed whether this is a right of a citizens action that needs for analysis and really is something the board needs to do not the commission we agree to the extent we should be doing everything we can to provide the assurance to the public that the

ethnics laws will be enforced but we need more analysis to propose a citizens right of action for civics laws and how specifically that are enacted. >> i'll propose - i'm sorry. i said prosper our response to findings 3 and recommendation 3 is that we agree with the finding and this the ethics commission will investigate whether or not it should make a recommendation to the board of supervisors that it enhances citizens right of action.

that would be consistent with the complaint that is being made we should be more pro-active and take on sort of the policy thing. but i agree with the chair we don't have enough real information about what a private right of action entails but we could put it on the agenda as something we should investigate and determine whether that is an effective mechanism >> that's fine i'll accept that. >> any other comments on finding 3 or recommendation 3? >> so that language then that disagree and also the language at the top of page 3 that would that should go out. >> i think for the recommendation 3 we would say

that the per the vice chair that we need to look at whether enhancing the citizens right of action would be the proper mechanism for the enhancement of the ethnics law if so we'll make a recommendation to the board. >> specifically mr., we have to take out the proposed language for example, at the top of page 3 the action of the status quo will not be implemented. >> the whole recommendation will have to change. >> my recommendation is not to increase recommendation 3 the commission will investigate to determine whether or not the enhancement of a private citizens right of action would

accomplish the further assurance of the public that the lazy will be enforced. what did the city attorney want to say something >> the deputy city attorney wanted to say there's a current action in the public code but it doesn't necessarily provide a board remedy as proposition j so any resident can file for an injunctive relieve for a proposed violation of the ordinances it has to be provided by the attorney of notice and there's not necessarily a guarantee of attorney's fees. >> so