>> if that happens

inadvertently we're like oh, they didn't it up to give their side at the task force again, i think we're mostly under we're concerned with the small percentage it's not clear that the people knew you know they had the obligation to respond to particular allegations. >> was if we modified option 3 if you add fend if the reversal letter indicates that the respondent was given notice of all of the what's it's not of action is it of action. >> a allegations. >> all the allegations that

were made against he or she if the task force represent that to us we can treat it depending on which chapter with the proper difference and the respondent can say that's right but or no, that didn't happen and we'll consider. >> sure. >> i think that is fine it is did comment i was going to provide as long as we on our end have requirement that we provide that we include what notice is provided on what date to whom and what if that's that in our referral letter that deletes all confusion. >> we started doing our administrator has a complaint history form we'll be tracking

matters like this so that when we refer matters to you not for that reason but for institutional history we sometimes see the cases over and over we're determined to build a database but a history that has that kind of information that helps insure we provide proper notice notice. >> okay any other questions or comments on this issue? public comment an issue one? >> dpooin in a i'm the custodian of records for the human services agency i have been in that capacity for the last two years i've responded on behalf of the human services

agency to sunshine issues we have filled one hundred and 25 sunshine requests this year in part because it is stopping proposed shoplifter in the bayview hunters point area we're trying to build for homeless people so we get a lot of complaints and it is not also clear i know my frustration with the task forces process is it is not also clear by the complainant what their complaining about and complaints have begun forward with little information to the human services agency they griefly failed to fill our requests but without a clear explanation as to how

and certainly not who did it and that information changes findings of the testimony that goes to the task force allegations seem to change and the findings it's unclear at one point we had a quality assurance person in the department named by the sclant i tried for months to get that person off the complainant they're not the responsible party we went through hearing after hearing on it went back several times and that person was fearful and i don't know if you know if you're not typically in front of those tvnlz tilts hard to go forward thinking you're being

accused it is feeling not clear what the allegations are not clear who their against and it changes at the end and you know having spent part of my career 10 i couldn't see at the office was citizens o citizens complaints it is clear up front when the initial work what the allegations were and always a defining line of unfounded to you know exactly what happened with the complaint that's not happening here. >> thank you any other public comment on this matter? any another comments from the commissioners? is there a motion to adapt option 3 as amended >> so moved.

>> second all in favor, say i. >> i opposed? okay. that motion passes move to issue 2 and it appears for issue 2 that the task force and the staff agree that we should adapt option 3 and 4 ; is that right. >> i think the task force i don't think that they were the option 4 was added after the draft was circulated so i think they agreed on option 3 i'm sorry, i forget let's see - >> option 4 is the one you can

bring a complaint against the city department for non-violation that's the one that the task force was not able to weigh in an because the amendment they had didn't have an option. >> okay. >> so maybe we can start by having the gentlemen address option 4. >> a that's fine that is the first time with my personal immediate reaction mr. washburn can agree my only primary issue with option 4 ufbtd the violation against the city department it does little to encourage ability i think that often; right when there's a

failure for transparent it misses you need an accountable person to respond to the findings of a violation against them so i'm not sure what good a will full violation against the city department in fact i'll be clear our response to this issue two all options 1, 2, 3 were under various crooks it's a violation against an individual someone would can be held accountable and provide we precede with our notice of obligation by issue won those are appropriate

options options. >> i think it's impossible for the task force to weigh in informally not having had a changing chance to discuss it my initially reaction it seems reasonable i guess based on my experience over the years i can think of cases there was a clear violation but we couldn't come up with anyone to hold responsible you know something was awry the department or agency probably due to just lack of training or having policies in place or you know way back when we were getting to know the ordinance you know go being unfamiliar and the place parts are imambitions

and need clarification i can't think of a specific case i know over the years we've been hard presses to name a person without naming a development head without understanding the case that person was not directly responsible in any way that you would want to have it in their personnel records or whatever i'm inclined to see where that could be useful but all four options seem to make sense because it is remarkably how many different wrinkles someone can find in the cases. >> on second thought to the extent it allows the xhoiks to have more face in finding a violation against a department as opposed to a department head

note named intended appropriate by virtue of not knowing the individual on deferred a department to you in most circumstances we'll want to know the party but if not that so to speak and maybe the department can find a violation against a department and not an individual so named. >> as i'm thinking about it the scenario often comes up in cases that ultimately never reach you we're working with a department to try to get public records or get better agenda or minute minutes or whatever and it's a department issue and the people can correct the changes but we'll not name them personal if

we could you know send the matter to you so like i said all kinds of wrinkles. >> questions or comments from the commissioners or the task force or staff? >> to the gentleman any problem with adapting all four. >> they're not exclusively looking at it i guess if the complaint came in against the department not naming an employee this is a complaint against not only the department but the i'm sorry if i'm talking this through the commission would decide was it non-willful is depended on chapter three we'll talk about the non willful

but pure non-willful consider the factors and in the absence of something that a department head had a violation could still have a nonwillful violation by the department that makes sense i'll only is that you might have ibm sight i'm not sure if you have if you want to say something because - >> what i can say is that while that may not go into our personnel files some of us didn't ask for our positions we were assigned them that's true of a lot of the custodians and participates the custodians will be named as opposed to the

department head there's a range of custodians that go before the task force anywhere from rec and park has secretary that goes to high level managers that are acting as their department the departments custodians i'm the director of investigations for any department i don't know how i ended up with that assignment i did i don't want it be named and have believe me with one hundred and 25 some odd issues that we're dealing with that has 6 to 10 - and i'm sorry can you ask you to focus our comments is there a particular option your advocating for . >> i'm advocating that you can have someone who's not named. >> okay. >> or just the department. >> yeah. so i agree with that

and i'm not sure we need one if we have four i can't imagine a situation i'm having a hard time seeing the situation a department is named and you find a willful violation against the department itself right you need a person to get a willful violation i would think so i kind of think if you have 4 that helps the task force with this problem of not 4th of july who it is it helps us, too, we get the referral we wanted to have that we don't think the department is involved and it is helpful in the analysis so i think it's a win-win option 3 i'm comfortable with adapting as well

you know option 2 i have hesitation about option 2 if you don't have option one you may not need it it makes me concerned the department has completely washed their hands of all of this they'll be the less involvement i have it's not getting near in stuff where i want the development heads to see their ultimately if in charge and care about that would not want to disincentivize this. >> sir. >> if i could provide a comment on why option it is variable it is based on employer employee if i have vicars factors to the

extent the department head knew about a policy that was in place and let the policy stand and responsible for the ratification of the action of the employees that is what option two is getting at the department head should be accountable the buck stops here without option 2 for finding a department he head in violation only in a willful violation of a sunshine ordinances if the department was involved in the records request it is easier for a department head to wash his hands i'm not going to be involved with the records or request i'm not going to be involved option 2 they can't wash their hands clean of a failed policy one we've recommended the sunshine task

force to be known by the department head he ratified the compliance with insufficient policy i think option 2 is in someways anymore important than option 3. >> maybe i'm not reading f this quite right and sir, i could use some help what is the answer to the enumerated statements in opposition 2 that leads to the non-local violation whether the department knew f then what all in favor of the non-violation. >> exactly. >> and if the direct report that cancels a non-willful and yeah, and the same is as the third. >> so that's why i don't follow

this if he knows he can be found for a non-violation if he does those and if not why would he or she be sensitive vices to do those things telling me if i'm looking at it in a way that's wrong. >> api i take ityou can't find a willful violation because the department was not involved so option 3 whether the department head had instituted a sunshine ordinance if he or she had not institute that sunshine policy that will mitigate in terms of a more egresses violation this should

be a yes or no. >> if the vice president head yeah. correct. >> and if had had not okay - i guess my personal view because i think it probable could be crafted in a way that makes it useful but - i'm struggling andy did you want to say something. >> only to clarify and just to following up on the gentleman's comment the 3 instances identified would be a willful violation and my absorption no

way for a violation only if the department head was directly involved only a non-violation on 2 and not 3 i actually think if you changed 3 whether or not the department head had instituted the sunshine policies it is a little bit clear. >> okay. >> yeah. yes. yes. but those are not deemed willful because the department head was not directly involved with the request. >> doesn't this tie our hands more couldn't we find a non-willful violations and are you limiting user if you adapt this option. >> and the option number one.

>> right but i think. >> in which is a catchall in light of opposition 2. >> so me it's redundant to option 4 i'm not sure that is necessarily fair but other commissioners want to weigh in or - >> one potential answer i don't think it gets to our broader point but we could have for option 2 not limited to that language but generally if there's some factor that sort of overriding we contemplate ahead of time that wouldn't tie the commissioners hands.

>> okay i'm not opposed to that you know i don't think it is necessary but as a guidepost i think it would be valuable so then we would say we would change sufficient to insufficient and add including but not limited to in option 2? how does that sound to the task force >> yeah. i think it sound much better i'm conscious of the fact you know i don't have the task force behind me right now but i

think that is an improvement certainly. >> is there a motion oh i guess i should. >> i move that we adapt option 2 as amended, 3 and 4 as written. >> second. >> public comment? all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? hearing none that motion passes option 3. >> have i got the right page? okay. so the task force suggested option 1 regarding authorized representatives ; is that right? and a >> yes.