indicated by the findings of something to the effect. any comments from the commissioners? is there a motion to amend 24, 25 as proposed by commissioner keane and commissioner hur? >> yes. so moved. >> second. >> second. public comment? >> a couple of comments on 24 t it is where the grand jury made a recommendation go you should be doing an annual report to the board of supervisors. i want to talk about that part. remember commissioner keane talked about it earlier you're also kind of the example of what

should be happening in showing what good government it ethnics is incredibly important to the citizens they don't get a chance to hear the represents voted often and on the state and local level the citizens don't get any kind of report on what that means if >> saying let the board of supervisors excuse and we will give a report remember it's a in the chapter to do an annual report that is helpful to the public here are the requirements those are new and those are not new andtolysis will the one pending it could be an important part of the legislation i would ask you to do an unanimous report we know find nothing that was recorded to the board of

supervisors in terms of the effectiveness of the laws and what was happening with them. i'd again saying it's worthwhile to think about an annual report. thanks >> larry bush from the civil grand jury just to clarify this is not the not to my knowledge report this is a special report specified in the charter you are to report to the board and mayor on the focusness of san francisco ethnics laws there are issues having to do this and they've not been recorded for example, of the march 2008 memo outlining the problems you found and adapting new policies about enforcement is an example never report to the board or public. in which changed the enforcement

policies of the department. so i think it would be a really good idea to comply with the charter. thank you. >> as brown mr. bush pointed out this is separate from the annual report and that's required for the boards. we understand we've seen opinion from city attorney that the form of this report is not specified and it could be prepared the in a lot of different wausz ways but we've seen no evidence it's been present at all it's a violation of the chapter. now we did ask the mayor and board of supervisors to request it but i think you should think about being pro-active it's an important policy for the commission to render on an annual basis how the laws are doing. and it, you know, provide the

fraction for changes you might entertain in the future you're looking at one piece of the law at that time, and not looking at things in a board sense so this report is very important. and the republicans to the recommendation so say prelims is not up to the ethics commission is just i don't really quite get that >> to be fair the recommendation does refer to the mayor and the board making the requests. >> yes, but ultimately you/have to prepare. >> right. >> we should prepare it anyway but i'm not it's fair to criticize us on that particular point i understand your point. >> okay. >> commissioners ray open san francisco government. i believe that the prior

speakers were all correct there's nothing requiring you to do something or prevent you a as we've talked about this wouldn't it be endangering if mr. syncountries list indicated one or two of you had not filed your forms that would not wanting to be embarrassing and this is if anyone in the city is going to republic a meeting in accordance with the sunshine ordinance it augmenting ought to be you, you set the example for everybody and your whole basis for credibility is where you follow the things i tell others to do. you can't have a city department coming in and following a

violation of the law and having krebltd and they can simply say if it's so important why you, you doing it i found members of the sunshine task force that this is a good argument. so putting this report out >> giving it to the board of supervisors and mayor on the volunteer balances sets an example for other departments we're to go be pro-active and something the chapter requires something that the civil grand jury recommended and as members of this commission i would hope you'll feel it's an important and appropriate thing to do. >> interested? view of my fellow commissioners commissioners but

i'm becoming persuade we had had a report like this i could see the benefit for our own, you know, regardless of what this board and mayor did with that on an annual basis to look at this on an annual basis. is there any concern from the staff about doing something like that? >> no. no >> i agree with the chair in light of the comments and the concerns are very valid points expressed in regards to us telling the public and what it is that is involved if ethnical matter we should put out an

annual report. i move we do it >> so perhaps you can amend our response to recommendation 24 to say that we will provide on an annual basis of the report regarding the focusness of san francisco's ethnics laws. we need to renotify on that? >> yes. >> sorry to interject to be consistent you may want to amend the last recommendation to 26 commissioner keane talks about the director should be removed. >> yes as at recommendation 25 as well. i think i've already spoken to

that >> yeah. yeah. >> is there a motion to further amend our responses to 24 and 25. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor. >> i. opposed >> hearing none that passes 4 to zero. >> recommendation 27. any comments from the commissioners? 28. i have some proposals on 28.

i would in responded to the recommendation i'd delete the second sentence and the last sentence. where's that >> recommendation 28 and page 17. i would also delete as troubling in the second to last sentence. any other - commissioner hayon

>> i want to comment on recommendation 28. not necessarily our response but i just want to say for the record that this feels like a star-chamber procedure or a game. and i think that hass as noted in our response at any meeting people certainly the public is free to bring up any issues of this nature has it is but i would be hesitant to have this be a form aspect of the commissioner hearings. >> i agree i don't think it's we

should include that. in our formal hearings. any further comments from the commissioners? >> (inaudible). >> yes. well, i'm proposing we delete the second sentence for recommendation 28. i next propose i would propose this is a politically troubling idea for the views are astonishing and i'll delete in the second to last response as troubling and finally, i would delete the last sentence.

i'm not sure how my fellow commissioners feel about that or if there's a motion. is there a motion to adapt recommendation 28 as amended >> so moved that we adapt. >> is there a second. >> second. >> public comments? commissioners i'll make that brief is changes are appropriate and i'd like to point out that that commissioner keane and others have done the executive director a huge favor they've taken him out of my line of fire

i put it on your own shoulder. all of those changes where you take out the directors decision really lead to the impression you are being directed by him rather than you directing him and taking his name and position out of this has done him a service. and also really does make that clear you sent the responsibility to which you've agreed when you take the position. >> well, with respect to recommendation 28, you know, congress does that all the time this is what protective bodies do when things are not sure

what's going on there's a lot of a.m. bigger things in the campaign finance earring easier and frankly whments the city family looks like it is scratching each other's back and it is worth putting it out in the public and letting people talk about what they're doing because it's that light of public discussion that clarifies a lot of the issues. and you know the fear the abuse we're not saying that just because someone senior housing shows up and says you ought to have a hearing we do it by not everything rises to the level of opening up a confidential investigation but there's a lot of things that are unethnic that

may not be illegal you're the ethics commission you, you should be lighting e hitler questionable behavior. you know there are so many examples i don't know where to start we've put in the traffic disclosures and payment disclosures. those are raising questions with what's really going on here. in terms of why are people giving this kind of money and expecting in rupture. this is just how business is being done in the city and sometimes it's good to have a public hearing on that. you can do it or not do it or in response to the recommendation or decide you want to do it in 6 months it doesn't matter a star-chamber is a closed kind of secretive hearing where no one else comes in to here that is more of a public forum.

i think there's a lot of instances where the public sees things that are represented in the papers about who is important at city hall and things like that and they wonder why they're not registered as lobbyist and what is going on people are concluded there's nothing illegal going on and public sxhechl continues to grow and its important to put 24 out there and let people defend themselves. i guess i dispute the idea this is something that's totally abused oar i've had to live with congressional investigations yeah, they drive you crazy it's part of life. in terms of 27 you know when the

state assembly acts on things to amend the police practices act at least put a pro forma a finding at the end for the clause that fortunes the purpose of the actress we see it with the ordinances at this point and the performer a finding is not impressive with the details of some specific ways how people know that further stipulates the purpose of the acts rather than seeing why it makes sense to do this permit. anyway, thank you >> thank you. further comments from the commissioners >> all in favor of adapting 28 and amended.

>> i. opposed. hearing none that passes. finding 29 comments from the commissioners? i would invite someone from the grand jury to speak on this one. i'm worried we're talking past each other between the recommendation and the proposed recommendation >> certainly. as we look to the number of the

ethnics laws and campaign laws and things of that nature we thought about how we terminator them and think about how their trermentd we often look to the statements of purpose that were put into the laws and things to e things of that nature. proposal j had this concept of reich what people, you know, in terms of if someone was getting a public benefit from the city and this could be a zoning change or a contract, it could be a lot of things we're restricted from giving campaign donations to officials that decide on that benefit. so it was an interesting

campfire concept from an implementation standpoint but there were a number the recommendations we listed them in the report. i'm trying to find the right place i know we have a whole thing >> on 7 and 27. >> 78 you have the actual ballot measure on 78. we have a finding that d disposition of interests it used by the public officials for their control. such assets should be used or arranged striking on the merits for the public eir respective of

the public officials. they make a similar finding the sale and lease of property and cable and trash hauling and others franchises. they made it clear there's a compelling state interest in reducing the corruption influence of the gifts and perspective campaign positions on the public officials and franchises. the disposition of public funds. the people that compensate the public officials september favors no gifts or promised employment or things should be received from such a decision for a reasonable periods as

provided here in. you can go through the definitions and we're not saying gee you should go and enact that right now. but i think those finding and declarations are, you know, a useful kind of decision thing to think about the purposes of the laws in general. and how you know the laws don't match up with the zoning changes and things like that that are falling outside the government ethnics laws right now. prop j dealt with a small class of elected officials in high government employees and didn't reach to the levels of people have to file form seven hundred right now. so we're not saying guarantee

this is to be totally reimpacted but it needs more public discussion and worth we visiting and so i'm clear >> maybe i had a hard time following this what is missing from e you think we should take from j. >> over e was a funny thing. but can you answer i'm sorry we're running out of times what specifically is in j you want that's not in e >> oh, the cow rephrase that. >> what is not in e that is in j that you think we should implement? >> all the finding. all the findings. >> all the perspective findings and declaration of purpose were

basically removed. and the concept of a public benefit was basically taken away. the proposal e has kind of a complicat complicated story there was sort of an acting clause that repealed thank you >> okay. thank you. >> i'll make this short larry bush from the civil grand jury some of the things would include zoning changes that bend a particular developer and included leases so for example, when pg&e took a lease over some

waived land that was considered not to be a contract therefore there was no prohibition on pg&e making contributions to the mayor who signed the lease. it also includes things like gifts of travel money to underwrite someone to stay in luxury hotels and flying first class and didn't include payment you receive a benefit because you get a company to make a contribution to a favorite charity or purpose and that contributor receives a major benefit like kilroy getting a benefit to the america's cup and getting kickbacks. there are a variety of things that include a private right of actions with penalties and so

forth. i'll point out while this response says this was approved by so many members of the board and the commission that commissioners have no recollection there's no reference in prop e that says what's being taken out it's outlined in the civil grand jury report. we have a had r a proposal to change the commission to adapt its own rules on political consulate you say a unanimous vote from the board to put it on the ballet and once it was explained to them some of them pulled their endorsements and the voters defeated it >> so the fact you've listed a group of people speaks to the fact that 2003 was not a good year to pay attention. >> i guess my concern with our

response is that while i agree it's true that it probably is fruit also to try to readapt proposition j as written i believe we should look at what was in prop j and not in e and see if any makes sense to us. >> i guess question for the staff what's the downside of doing that or is that already addressed from findings one through 28? >> i think the major outstanding issue i guess is that in its form that it is in the los angeles superior court said it was unconstitutionally

board no one took the challenge further so that's the one legal precedent we have to go on. >> we're not talking abouty adapting it but looking at if there's anything that is useful for san francisco that would be draft to be not unconstitutional and is that - or have we tried that. >> not that i'm aware of. >> is there any reason not to do it heights not rhetorical. >> there's no reason not to look at prop j it does speak to something that prop a e was passed and prop j passed it is a bit odd going back 10 years to revisit the issue i certainly wouldn't want- i think it would

be advisable to look at that but in terms of what is effective to our campaign lobbying laws not to limit ourselves quite frankly campaign laws have changed and supreme court rulings have changed. i certainly know t think it is great to inform our decision making but not limited to prop j itself that's my $0.02 and commissioner keane >> we wouldn't have to limit ourselves i propose for some future meeting we put on the agenda our analysis of prop j and prop e and what was lost from j that was 92 not recess recollect f