we may not agree with all of that with every one but all of them need to be discussed and looked at it. so i appreciate your efforts thank you very much >> thank you, commissioner. >> mr. chair. >> any other public comment? commissioner keane >> yeah. i wanted to echo what commissioner hayon said as well in regards to the report itself. i think the report is an excellent documents shows a lot of work work and the senator said it's highly readingable and very much a set of instructions that many of which we should follow in regards to the civil grand juries roll during the course of any career having been

an assistant dpw department head of a depended for years there were two times my department was the topic of civil grand jury reports each time each department is looked at by the civil grand jury there are a couple of responses that sort of incity council's occur one the defenseness that automatically takes place their krisz us they're saying we're bad therefore we have to reopened in some way to show they're wrong. i think that that is a totally unproductive way to address something like the civil grand juries effort in my efforts in this situation that's not how i'm going to address it. in regard to some of the comments that were made

preliminary related to our proposed draft i agree with the comments the draft itself i'm going to ask it be substantially modified there is in the draft some of the semidoctrine i've talked to be defensive and take on the grand jury about seismic things the grand jury is said that's totally unhelpful i'm sure you'll agree much of your recommendations are things that we can agree and should agree on others we'll have discussions about the manner but for the most part i want to commend all of you for your work it's outstanding. the citizens of san francisco owe you a great debt and i as a

member of this commission and i'm sure the other commissioners appreciate it very much. >> good morning commissioner. i'm richard knee a former member of the sunshine ordinance task force when i served 4 years. recently my replacement was finally appointed a few things first of all, i'm understanding on your response to finding representation number 12 you say the ethics commission director will have staff notifies all the departments to remind officials and employees to follow the posting requirement to insure that the postings are easy to locate on the departmental website. you're going to have your staff

notify the staff to look at the posting what if they don't what's the ors there. on recommendation on our responses to recommendation 20 b of the appointment of a hearing officer you point out there no mechanism in the sunshine ordinance to do that i will encourage t you to consultant with the city attorney. that being the case it certainly worth examining. finally going back to our response to finding one f you say the budget process is the primary told them of the ethics commission to the city. maybe it is but there is also

the appointment time process your appointed by someone in the city an elected city official who's activities your duty bound to oversee there's an attachment. >> any other public comment? hearing none i will commissioner keane you made some strong comments you disagreed with some of the staff recommendations so i guess we'll start with the recommendation in response to the finding and recommendation number one. do you or any other commissioners have any comments

suggested changes? >> i have yes mr. chair yes and go ahead. >> the finding is that the ethics commission the finding by the grand jury is that the ethics commission lacks the resources to handle the major enforcement cases goes ton to include examples of misconduct. i mr. chair, i would strongly recommend that we not use the language in our response whereas, to that finding number one we say we disagree. and for one thing what we have been saying many times in regard to this commission and this commissions resources and the ability to handle many of the things we want to handle we are

hamstrung because of the lack of resources. and in regard to where we respond to this finding it is almost like someone is living in a parallel world rather than addressing something different and what this commission has been saying all along first of all, the grand jury cited no instances where there's is clrtsz where the ethics commission failed to act due to a lack of resources. i think it's eir respect whether the grand jury came up with specifics or onerous burden of proof on their point where we failed to do something we should have done.

we generally acknowledge among ourselves at our meetings we need nor investigators we need more staff and resources. so to rather than to say in our findings we disagree and take the grand jury to task for saying you haven't cited any specific cases we haven't done our job i'll ask we agree with them and change it and say 55 that the ethics commission lacks sufficient resources sufficient resources to handle its work. and i will stop there rather than going into my of the things having to do with specifics and split hairs in the types of cases that can and can't be

handed. for us to say anything other than the fact we don't have sufficient resources would be disingenuous and would be against our interests at budget time when we approach the city and ask them for resources. so to put it in the form of a motion or vote on it later than i would just move that in regard to our response to it finding one a we agree to the extent that the ethics commission lacks sufficient resources to handle all i have its work. and i would - should ii would do that as to recommendation one a should i continue with the rest of my observations on one >> on one.

>> mr. chair. >> your comments were specifically i think decorated to how we respond to the recommendation. >> yeah. >> and the recommendations reads the jury recommends a contract with the fair police. >> - we agree that the ethics

commission lacks sufficient resources to fully handle its job. >> but that's not what the finding a we lack resources specifically to enforce to handle major enforcement cases and that's where i think the disagreement no disagreement we need more resources but i'm asking and my concern is that i'm not ready to concede since

i've been on the commission we've refused to handle conflict of interest and violating campaign financing because we didn't have the resources. and mr. chair i don't think that's what haven't one a says it did not accuse us of not handling the cases i've talked about it says we lack sufficient resources to handle major enforcement cases that's a global statement to whether or not we have the sufficient resources. it goes on as examples to include those what kinds of cases they're talking about misconduct or conflict of interest or violating post employment restrictions that and say we haven't done our job many handling those cases.

as i read it, it just says we don't have sufficient resources to accurate handle it it doesn't say we've let any go by the board we may have i don't know it's saying in terms of of the resources we have now they're not sufficient to handle our work generally and our work generally includes the specific matters that are listed we should agree with that. if for nothing else it give us ammunition to approach our budget with the city in regard to saying we need more resources in order to effectively handle those cases >> any other commissioner have comments. >> so i think later in the

report we do mention the fact there is one unfunded investigator i believe it's specifically base we lack the resources to hire that other investigator so in many ways it could fly both of them can't be true we either lack the resources or we don't there's an open position of an investigator or an auditor because there's not funding to support that. so that said i think we do lack the resources and i guessed the question would be, you know, there is a nominal way in which i do business if you're saying to me that in your work chart all your positions are filed your stating to the city and to the public you are running at

optional mall level but if you're work chart it vacant it's because it is unfunded. and i think that's what we have here we lack the resources. now how that is written in our response i think we'll need to talk about that but the fact is there's a position. >> commissioner hayon. >> where to begin. i guess one way to address the grand jury report is to go through each single finding and each single recommendation line by line that's fine i'm not opposed to that but i would like to recommend my fellow commissioners there are much larger policy issues that have

been recommended here that we need to address. so whether or not we agree that we lack resources or don't lack resources i don't think is the important issue we need to address and the grand jury has brought before us they're making strong representations about how to handle policy, how we should work with other agencies and whether or not we should even exist or doing the bulk of the work assigned to us those are major issues we need to discuss thoroughly and we can certainly go line by line by i personally would like to put my energy into the much large policy issues that have been recommended here. >> yes. >> my name is larry bush a

member of the civil grand jury that worked on the report i'm speaking in this capacity specifically to a the first point it refers to resources not financial resources it's try you have lacked legal resources for example, when you made the findings the misconduct of the library leader you lacked the finances it take action against the commissioner on the department heads do be under the pressure view of the commission for example, a legal resource if you didn't act on a conflict of interest or ordinance violation secondly, if you go back to our records for two years the ethics commission executive director sent outliers saying they wouldn't go follow-up on the

seven hundred form filings there wasn't enough funding to take care of with the fact they didn't file their 7 this was for 3 years and finally there's a letter saying you no longer need to provide accident ethics commission with reports on contracts that's an important conflict of interest issue but there was insufficient resources at the commission to review those things so the commissioner own records said you lack the resources to do the jobs assigned by the voters. >> thank you. >> i'm bob plant hold. because containing has focused on finding one a i want to indicate there maybe instances a

underwriter to follow up on complaints because of the confli confidentiality i know if the grand jury saw the clamentsz but the public was told when you file a complaint not to make it public i did file with the term of the grand jury a complaint of an official misconduct others complaints i've filed normally has some answer we're not going to investigate or whatever other complaints have had a responded ever 2 months. this one no. so it raises the question do you have enough resources to official misconduct it allows some of the thoughts of people there's politics involved this

person is influential within city government but if i was asked by the grand jury about filing complaints yo know about the complaint of official misconduct. but the fact there's a a longer lack of resources makes we question whether the lack of resources saying this has merit or unfounded or this should be sent somewhere else because they didn't cite it didn't mean there are situations where according to non-practice a timeline of response.

>> commissioner haney. >> mr. chair following up on what the speaker said he makes a good point for us, you know, our language to the grand jury to essentially tell them in a way you haven't shown us give us a list chapter and versus of all sorts of see situations we should have taken on and done or else you're wrong about us not having the resources. i think not only an unseemly way to react to our language of what they're saying but kind of juvenile. it is kind of that petulant defensive that is enjittered by people they feel like they've been personally under attack. how is the public to know what we haven't done and how is the

public to prove to us we haven't done something when much of the - many aspects of the process itself was indicated by the speaker the public isn't allowed to be aware of because if there's going to be public complaints against someone it can be come down if it's made public so definitely whatever we do i think just for our own self-self-worth we should delete that language in our response we're telling the grand jury you haven't proved your case to us tell us about some actions i don't know that language is in there it is kind of puts us in an unfortunate light.

>> you want to make a motion. >> yes. >> that we redraft that. >> yes. i do. >> my motion would follow-up on what i've said reinforcing before in regards to that paragraph as to one a we san diego and goes on to chase tis the grand jury for not citing specifics i'll take that whole thing out and our response to that we agree that the ethics commission lacks sufficient resources to handle much of its work. it's necessary as the chair indicated it fails to specifically address those specifics with the grand jury puts there as an example put that language in so the

resources to handle is most of its work that includes major enforcement cases cases alleging misconduct and the language in the paragraph >> what about the last sentence in one a you want that deleted? >> i'd leave that in there this is appropriate in terms of the commission saying we had this commission like many agencies in have full resources just that language itself contradicts what we're doing fine we have plenty of phone number money leave that in while the ethics commission awhile agencies does not have

the full resources to carry out its mission its productive because the commission the staff is productive and does a good job to the extent that it can. >> you want to just strike the first sentence. >> yes strike the first sentence and. >> and strike disagree. >> i'm going to read what this with the second sentence the finding one a our response while the ethics commission acknowledges like many agencies that it didn't is not have the full resources, etc. etc. and just use have that sentence does that makes sense to all of

you this is >> you're saying agree and then that statement. >> i don't know are we going to use the words agree and discharge. >> we have to okay agree and followed by that sentence. again while the ethics commission acknowledges like many agencies it doesn't have full resources, etc. etc. >> right. i accept that as >> okay. >> and part of that as the motion. >> so your motion is as read by commissioner hayon and your seconding. >> yeah. >> the public comment on that particular - yes.

>> i have not submitted moisten well, i have something presented to the ethics commission of trying to get a record. when i didn't get - when the others saw the people that should respond said they agreed with me and would respond they never respond. well, does that mean i have to come back and get nothing done?. it seems like that some action can be taken sort of a if you go investigation maybe a referral to some other agency you can say we don't have staff to do this but we think the district attorney should investigate. but the two things i've brought

that i put a lot of work into presenting a case one was to the grand jury of alameda county they made a pitch to the public submit our complaints i didn't get any acknowledgment. i found other people had gotten action times when i investigated the process it seems like the complaints that are address to the grand jury were first submitted to the district attorney. and the complaint i made was very severe about the transportation agency. and corruption there. and the party that was involved

and the agency that was corrupt was the same parties as the district attorney. and it would reflect on their ability to get collections in the identification were made. so it is difficult to figure out how to protect confidence and how to make a consent case it isn't a political corruption that's holding up the legislation i've gotten a similar situation of providing data that took a lot of times on my part i'll show i, do better in the first line of presenting things than the enforcement agency because i wasn't in direct controversy with them they couldn't make the pitch i was fighting i was ask them for

closer and consistent of their actions. so i think we're putting a lot of attendance on a good process forgetting the laws enforced rather than the excuses >> thank you very much. we have the motion pending yes? >> ray for open government i want to thank commissioner keane and commissioner andrews that is a typical defensive and thing that we find fault with the grand jury that way people will be sdrurlgd from looking at us i think the phrasing has to be carefully considered givn