it is i know it's saying it's not clear we don't need to say that we don't need to consecutive that we maine maybe in a situation we're asking other departments to report particular items of misconduct that are not precluded by state confidentiality and constitutional confidentiality rules we don't want this this sentence come back to haunt us later on. any other comments on recommendation 13? i concur with what you said commissioner keane as well. is there a motion to adapt finding and recommendation 13 as

amended by is commissioner keane >> so moved. public comment? >> commissioners ray director from san francisco open government i agree with commissioner keane we can't disclosure this because it might ask other to violate a law obviously if you can't disclose something but the page 9 the categories non-exempt are one person who takes the public funds and so forth and i'm looking the case we had at the f pc at the city librarian there is absolutely nothing to prohibit putting open the ethics commission website he was found to have pursue injured himself and he admitted that the $5,000

a year from the friends and filed a statement saying he got nothing from the friends. and he filed amended statements that's all public record we're not disclosing anything that is personal or confidential things so we want the public to know a public official broke the law and did see

time he was and government guide

i think there's a general consensus that is not sort of general advisory but not a source of law it didn't do the level of analysis that we're looking for. and, you know, you do list the categories non-exempt from disclosure i don't see why you can't as departments report violations in those categories.

to the ethics commission. thank you. >> any further comments from the commissioner commissioner commissioners? i take it that the challenge with asking the departments to self-report those that are exempt it is that it would require us to analyze them separately anyway and that you wouldn't have any sense that all of the - that the ones that are discloseable are being shared by departments is that the general

concern? >> i'm not sure there's a problem with asking for self-reporting. if they report and we disagree unless you're getting inxanlt violations what is the burden that we're worried about >> we can ask in the report the question how often do we have to repeat ask them and how do we know i mean some might decide to do it and some might not we don't know what we're getty think it's going to be a lot of work to keep on top of it. >> mr. chair. it more goes back to some public comment made if there's not a

consequence built in you're spending a lot of times on monitoring and remonitoring and basically north not getting the information you need. unless we're all willing to design a consequence for failure to report after we've dipped how often they should report once a year a competitive submission flls unless there's a consequence we're having the same conversation how often do you send out and memo and how did it effect our effectiveness in being in body and carrying out your work >> i mean here the consequence would be it would be publicly disclosed this is a repel consequence but i'm

understanding the smechl they're going to look at this language. so unless we require that i see there would be probably not an effect >> all in favor of the motion made i commissioner keane. >> i. >> i. >> opposed. hearing none the motion passes. >> can we take 14 and 15 together that is they relate to one seven hundred any questions or comments related. >> commissioner keane. >> yes. my comments are to 14. in regard my disagreement with

our proposed nation. it is has to do with recommendation 14 b of the grand jury that says the ethics commission should recommendation dismissal who fails to file 90 days after the deadline we proposed it not be implement if so outside of the ethics commission jurisdiction under the state law only the f p pc can conduct enforcement matters regarding form seven hundred this is not an enforcement matter to recommend something we don't have the power to enforce anything unless a person fails

to file in 90 days we recommend they be dismissed our recommendation maybe go forward in many instances so the reason we can't do this we will be conducting enforcement that's not enforcement recommendation is not enforcement so the reason didn't make sense. i think it's a good idea and i would move that we adapt the recommendation of the grand jury that we recommend dismissals for any employee that fails to file after the deadline someone has been informed by us with thirty days with a couple of follows up if they have not done that by 90

days they've shown contempt and they should be dismissed so my motion would be that we adapt the recommendation 14 b as property by the grand jury. >> commissioner keane who do i think we should recommend it to? >> i think in regard to the particular officer that's involved we would look to see in the chapter and the ruling law which would be the appropriate body that could remove that person. whether it would be the board of supervisors or the mayor or

whether it would be the head of some department and whoever the appropriate officer or body was that 0 could remove that person we make the recommendation to that individual or body >> so i'm not against sending something to the appointing officer or the entity that has the power to remove i'm not sure in every case someone that fails to meet the deadline of 90 days should be removed from office. so i propose modifying commissioner keanes amendment to perhaps notify the officer or appointing body to this person has failed to file after 90

days. in my mind first of all, i'd like to make the recommendation i'm also comfortable with maybe not always dismissals >> let me take our language mr. chair you wouldn't be comfortable with automatically dismissing someone was not filled the form within 90 days that's not what would happen. you don't have to worry about that. our recommendation is not going to have that effect it's going to be our opinion that this is something we consider so important that the person should be i don't know if we going to make - if there's entities involved let's the entities be

dealt with why the particular entity that has the power over the individual to dismiss are not dismiss. we can give deference to exercise that deference we're our action is not automatically putting them down but it's a strong statement merited by this body with the fact someone go forward filing the form seven hundred for 90 days we're not shooting anybody off the bat >> commissioner andrews. >> so g under commissioner keanes proposal is there a somewhere which we wouldn't make the decision or recommendation.

>> no. there's not. >> the short answer with regard to the proposal which is adapting with the grand jury made we would just do it and in every instance we see the person has not filed within 90 days. what we could do if my colleagues are more comfortable putting in a last thing to the effect we'll make the recommendation unless we had heard information from the individual involved. that we believe would mitigate or excuse they're not filing within 90 days we could add that if we want >> can you respond. >> commissioner. >> a hybrid of the late filer

the person who failed to file. in 90 days that a letter immediately be sent to the official or body letting them know they had an opportunity have not filed at our next regular meeting if they have not filed with the thirty days it's to our next meeting we'll make the recommendation >> we'll accept that as an amendment. >> i like the amendment peppering although my other main concern with that in instances where we make recommendations where we don't have authority to follow through an i'm not sure it serves as a real purpose i mean if the authority ignores what we say and they're getting those letters because people are late on filing i don't worry that in some ways we undermine

our own power those letters do get go forward. >> commissioner hayon. >> well, i'm thinking if you were the person involved what about maybe a suspension a person be suspended until they've met ore obligation to file form seven hundred rather than an out right dismissal is that a be possibility can we amend that. >> i think that's fine the message is the important thing the grand jury is emphasizing get a message out for people who haven't filed for 90 days this is seer and flies in the face of the desire or need for

transparency and responding if i may to the chair we make remedies say we shouldn't make recommendations if they're not going to be complied with you would refer this to the language in the charter the commissions duties being to set an example for ethnics and transparency and to educate the public and other members of san francisco city government in good ethnical practices. in that that regard mr. chair, i think that we should not be in my way deferred but the idea of making a statement that we believe is appropriate by the idea that well someone is going to ignore us if they ignore us fine we made the statement and

should go ahead and do it. and if that's what the charter set this commission up to do to be something of a good government advisor to the city and county and to the public >> commissioner andrews. >> so i like where we going here but it feels like what is the explicit the violation is it too heavy-handed. it could be so unreasonable that that would be the reason why someone wouldn't follow that compared to not sending out anything fall at all is that

reasonable for someone to be fired or to be put on notice of suspension until you file in which case the governing - the authority or the entity would be more willing to entertain our recommendation because they would see it as something in line with the progressive disciplinary action amongst the spectator most disciplinary action although we include termination it feels like we've gone from zero to one hundred pretty fast >> no, no as i said in response to commissioner hayon if we wanted to use a recommendation for suspension rather than

firing that's okay with many he. >> but to your point commissioner keane and we shouldn't be afraid to use it i would be comfortable to move forward each and every time it comes up in front of the of the commission to make those recommendations different at least for me. the termination >> so commissioner andrews sorry commissioner hayon you want to say something. >> if we recommend a dismissal did that mean an employee would be dismissed or is it our recommendation only to terminate the employee i find it hard to believe anyone will implement that. >> it's our recommendation only a recommendation had we hope

carry some wealthy we're not only a voice crying? wilderness an observation that something has been done that violates ethnical conduct whether or not the person gets suspended or dismissed we don't know. we've made the statement and i think it's an important statement to make. as i understand the proposal from commissioner andrews it is that after 90 days if a person did not file their form seven hundred we send a letter to the office of the individual or entity that has the authority to remove that person or discipline that person and say within 60 days the ethics commission will if they don't file we will make a determination about recommending further action

against - and i would - i would tighten it up >> they're accountable and i would be more specific and i would move for suspension because again, we don't - there can be mitigating factors or other factors that we just don't know about maybe 19 percent of the time they remember irresponsible but it turn out they were hanging up and down in traction we want to leave the opportunity for the authoritative body to respond in thirty days. >> would there be an opportunity to for that person to come before us to hear what we this to the. >> it only medians if we're

willing to look at that. >> i would recommend in the thorough you active body wants to come before to explain i would certainly entertain that. >> for myself i'm uncomfortable about a blank discipline it didn't give me comfortable if i recommended something i'm not ultimately making the decision to me we have to agree at least majority of us agree it is warranted and i'm uncomfortable having a blanket notation every

time this happens without actual some opportunities to understand the facts at issue to send another letter that the person should be spent unless they change. but if there's a motion to be made i believe it should be heard and entertained >> by not moving forward the dismissal i'm looking this person as an employee and we're all or have been or continue to be employees and this could be the very blind spot this is a very good employee outcomes otherwise there's a great employee day to day and they're just fatally down on the one area granted it's a key area i'll question obviously i have

questions for the author active body that's why it is hard to move towards dismissal we're only having a blanket off with their heads and now thrown out a good public certainty for that particular violation without giving an opportunity to explain themselves or have the author active body explain that particular situation. the suspension would basically our suspend until you file and hopefully lesson learned >> can i ask a clarifying question did that mean it's automatic or we vote at it with the understanding that the typical recommendation. >> i would make it automatic. >> it is not a hard calculation

they've gone on notice and they'll respond and an authoritative body responds we shouldn't make this perplex e complex this is what happens to you when you don't report otherwise you're a great employee so that's why i'm walking back and feel like each time this happens there should be a direct consequence in this case we'll move forward. commissioner hayon >> once again we're in the position of being a paper tiger make a recommendation whatever it is and non-nobody has to

follow the recommendation what's the point. there has to be a way to get people to obey the filing of their seven hundred forms and i don't know what it would be to me maybe it's shaming every month we should have a press release that goes out naming city employees that have not come pitied with the filing of the form 7 hundred in my opinion we'd have more power than certainly firefighter if you're on the list somewhere and can get you know the papers the different media that are out there to carry that notice