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. i think that is worth clarifying and having read former chairpersons hope memorandum coming her, she makes it clear better than i do the issue why am my response to 3 is garbled it's a bit of a in his normal we need a knowledgeable representative we perform a valuable intense but unfortunately constrained fact finding admission we need

someone to answer questions like what efforts were made to go through our staff persons e-mail for records we need someone that knows the answer like that this is a request we need someone knowledgeable about a complaint i'm mindful the possibility of this violation reaching the xhoiks is the rarest of the 3 am i wrong on that regard. >> they seem to be usually included in other violations. >> again, this is a scenario by the time the results it's referred to ethnics we've admonished this is not working we need the inclines so you can tells you more and send someone that knows not only an

authorized representative we'll have experience where someone comes and says we conducted a use but that is an unauthorized representative that is option 3 but not suite our concerns with the investigation of the complaint and everyone comes to the issues at play and little violations necessary. >> yes. we've had occasions where a staff person comes and reads a statement then be unable to go beyond that didn't draft the statements had no improvements whatsoever in anything so there's not much we can do with that. >> i can't speak for the vice

president but one frustration i think without clear allegations at the outset i know you don't write the allegations but they have a complaint it's not clear they come in and then sort of the allegations more so it's hard unless your peppering involved to answer those questions by clearly it does the statute permits a representative so there in i agree 2 will be helpful whoever went is prepared in order to be prepared if you weren't involved you need to know the allegations to prepare to answer the questions that's a bit the republic so far as i can see. >> going back to how we were talking about issue number one

but for the chair and mr. washing burn our clerk victor young and city attorney collaborate on a memorandum that isolates the issues it is better than what the complaint stated but it is still facilitating we do a lot of investigation and fact finding but that memorandum which goes out to the respondent if usually is good enough to put the respondent ordinance notice who to send to respond to the allegations that railway and acknowledging we see a lot of complaints but railway you get an instance the person can't talk about it at all i can't

help but thinking the representative the terminology is someone that knows what's going on who can give us some direction. >> what is that document called that they will get in advance of appearing before you you referred to it as a memorandum. >> i believe the memorandum it says memorandum on top from the city attorney and the administrator to the respondent. >> right and it is sometimes the complaint although the state attorney will say he's not sure what exactly the complainant wants we'll have the relative law sections of the ordinance state law will site case law if there's some that is relevant and suggest lines of inquire to us and along with that our

office supporting documents the complainant has provided and the respondent that's the package we get beforehand but the memorandum i rely heavily on it to starts thinking about the case before we have the hearing. >> this it is the city attorney's memorandum to the respondent? >> to the task force. >> to the task force. >> right. >> and does the respondent receive it as well? >> yeah. >> that is all part of the agenda package that's posted on our website in advance of the meeting. >> i understand it will be posted for the public but are the respondents sending i'm. >> the respondents are sent a copy of the agenda prior to appearing at the task force hearing. >> we get a copy of the agenda

but not the city attorney's opinion right up we have to pull that down off the website 5 days before the complaint. >> we also receive it 5 days before the complaint and the way we representative it it appears to be a ph.d and each the file number is a link as a disguised link i'm not sure have you ever tried to click on that. >> i put it in a binder and go through it is inclusive of the city attorneys write up. >> is that memo usually sufficient to identify the allegations? in our experience >> no not necessarily no >> information comes in after we get that we generally bet get

the notice of the meeting much earlier than the 5 days and so it comes to us to give us the heads up we need the task force it gives a statement of whose complaining and maybe a line about the complaint but not necessarily enough to know what the issue is. >> all right. >> unless the ethics commission things this is a moufrs it is at the outset of the procedure and the lady has not appeared but i know she's indated with sunshine and public records request she's the representative that is variable when she comes to speak and assists us in naekt the issue in many cases it is not an issue aside from an abate like

ms. christen batteries by records as the public right, of course the understanding it is of they start off in mover of us it requires a knowledgeable person. >> so if a person has to make a good faith effort to respond i'm sympathetic to wasn't ms. christen is saying if you don't know at the outset whether the person violated the ordinance you and know what the allegations were. >> it is a mixed bag some are much clearerer than others if we

file to send a representative in my experience how could you not send a knowledgeable representative you know we'll exercise discretion if so it so bad i get it i get that but if something is clear as one individual requesting a personnel file if so a pretty cut and dry records request within boundary then it's easier to find a violation well, a person didn't know what's going on. >> in terms of the condition adapting a policy to clarify the means i think adding in a good faith be prepared to respond to the allegations i think it's

fair and hefbable i don't know what the other members of the commission or chairman thinks any objection to that you look skeptical this concerns me. >> i'm just trying to think in terms of i mean good faith effort i'm trying to think in terms of the commission having one of those allegations before it and judging what is good faith and not good faith. >> should we say prepared to respond to those allegations in the city attorney's memo? >> yes. >> at least take the responsibility. >> as long as that person is prepared to respond to the

allegations in the city attorney's memo i'll leave it to you guys what it is called. >> with respect to the don't faith comments i think the assignment gets the bad faith should be presumed where the section would be an instance we've reflected over and over going again for a person to come and speak to us and they review refuse what's the prepared language. >> prepare to respond to allegations in the memo whatever we call that memo what the name of it is so ms. christensen comes we'll download the package and she's prepared to address it if you guys raise thing not in

there she'll go back but not being in violation for not answering the questions that's something i view as - >> i think that sounds like reasonable our usual scenario the department sends no one to the hearings. >> that's the other. >> that happens. >> that happened together r tonight. >> public comment an issue 3? is there a motion to adapt option 2 as amended? >> so moved. >> second. >> second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? arrest hearing none that motion passes. >> than