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 and hey you're the delineate employee. but that's one thought i guess i

feel, you know, one of the things we're constantly criticized for we have no power. so then what is the point of implementing something which once again underscores the fact we have no power this is not to say that filing our form seven hundred is not important we should get employees to comply but i think it is silly >> well commissioner andrews. >> mr. chair i'll say this and so i'm not sure where i'm going to land if we're talking about employees that are within departments sometimes there are a culture within the department different levels of accountability and if we want to effect change and effect an outcome to have a higher accountability i completely hear and understand commissioner

hayons point on shaming and that may work for that particular employee but not address the larger culture of higher accountability in a department in which case the department heading head or particular individuals title is we get to hold them accountable that will help to train the employees to help them do a better job of more timely filing. a that's often what i see a culture that possible lives within one the entities that has to be changed and often changed at the top. so that's a point of observation >> did you want to say something. >> right now, we're down to 4 non-filers so you've spent a

great deal of of time talking about four people but we have an hour and 15 minutes left before we vacate the room. >> is there a motion to make any amendments? >> mr. chair, i move that we implement the - that if someone has failed to file within 90 days we recommend to the appropriate authority body or person that individual should be suspended from city employment. >> is there like a public comment? members of the ethics commission

ray with open government i served 3 years on the commander fleet we dealt with human resources issue and spent time teaching management in hawaii. i made clear the purpose of taking action never to fire an employee i don't think confronting that the grand jury should be fired it will take an action just to get them to comply with the law then we would not have to suspend. if at a 60 day point you send out a letter here's a list off people in our department that haven't filed their statement of economic interest and failed to do so in the next thirty days we're vote to recommend their dismissal or termination i'll

bet 95 percent of the people we're talking about will file? next week. that's the purpose of this to get them to file. and the departments going back to councilmember kersey comments are smoking gun sometimes the problem if there's no really atmosphere if the department that filing this is even worth an effort or even worse someone senior? department didn't file their own and everybody else is saying why should i that's a real problem that employees have to confront so what i'm saying i agree strongly that to be the the recommendation or the proposed change i don't know you should recommend an action it should be up to the authority

they should be the one to look at the human resources or the city attorney or the unions the contractors or whatever to simply say we're going to recommend this if they fail to meet the requirements of the law it will be a big enough issue to the body. i'll give you an example they don't want someone like ray heart of the san francisco government walking in with a list saying here's the people in your department that have not filed your statement and why is it and why are you not doing something about it we're talking about public shaming it's sometimes appropriate. but it is always a recognize of the people in charge that are

not enforcing the rules rather than the employee who fails to follow them >> hello larry bush from the civil grand jury there's no g question the ethics commission has gotten people down to filing the fact they're down to a few is a strong statement but this is the people that filed with the ethics commission not the form seven hundred with the departments that's a much, much larger group of people you'll soon see in the electronic filing of form seven hundred but if anyone in the department who makes the decision but we've seen in the past are city employees and officials who have outside employment that is a

direct conflict with their position in the city you wouldn't know that until you see their form seven hundred and you have a case from someone from puc they didn't file with the ethics commission they filed with the department but it opportunity they were accepting money from a contractor that they themselves awarded the contract to. they are not the only one in the example that's why knowing what is in form seven hundred an important we need to know the conflicts that's not just a state requirement because here in san francisco we have a requirement that says city officials can't be compensated and we've had cases where they were doing that. the f p pc thofrts is to not act

open the fact they were in violation of local laws. that's our responsibility. well done in part >> can i ask the city attorney's office whether there are legal concerns about making recommendations of suspensions? >> i don't think there's a particular legal prohibitions but to conform their recommendations the ethics commission didn't have a policy to enforce those recommendations. >> and to clarify the motion is it for all those who file with the ethics commission is it

commissioner keane. >> it's under the recognition of filing forms seven hundred. >> okay in favor? i >> opposed. i oppose the motion passes. the finding 16. any comments from the commissioner commissioners? 17? we haven't been taking public

comment unless we were going to do make changes to the particular recommendation response or findings response. mr. bush if you have a clarification >> just a clarification. the state law is that you have to disclose if you're contributing $500 or more but now how much more he city business at the same time, if you're making a contribution to a city officials campaign traffic some have expensive and tricks - contributions we have no problem looking at local golfs can specify you have to disclose 5ho