if you are able to control your own environment and house and recovery and your neighbors are doing the same the city as a whole will be a more resilient city. >> we are all proud of living in san francisco and being prepared helps us stay here. >> so, thank you so much for joining us today, alicia, i appreciate it. >> absolutely, it is my pleasure. >> and thank you for joining us on another edition of building

speaker: welcome to the regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. we'll begin by taking the role. vice chair reanne >> present. speaker: andrews. speaker: pren. speaker: hur. hayon. speaker: here. speaker: ken. speaker: here. keane. speaker: here. speaker: first is agenda -- speaker: i attended a task force meeting on august 6. at that

meeting, a very unpre-possessing young man played a tape recording of your ethics commission meeting. featured in that audio recording was primarily your commission keane praising this young man because according to keane, hundreds he has prosecuted an ethics complaint and according to mr. keane, quote, hundreds of people in the same situation would have given up. really? or the obstacles to a successful commission complaint so high that a fraction of 1% can expect success? does mr. keane tell his business associates, and his neighbors,

i'm on the ethics commission. it's dysfunctional for, you know, less all -- less than 1% of the population, i'm in charge. a very strange thing to be proud of. don't we want to live in a society where access to an ethics commission complaint is the lowest, not the highest. that raises two questions. first of all, how do all these people supposed to feel knowing that they are not competent to pursue an ethics complaint, a successful ethics complaint because the barriers are so high that more than 99% of them would give up, and more importantly, do we want an ethics complaint to be the most exclusive club in town? in fact,

an ethics commission complaint shouldn't speak or interest in descent see and fairness. and isn't that not only the right of every citizen, but isn't our ideas about democracy including descent see and fairness for everyone? mean that we want that society no matter who brings the complaint. i think it is the wrong approach to take. in fact, what we want is descent see -- we want decency to be the most successful and that's the lesson you sent out deliberately according to this recording.

thank you. speaker: mr. chair, point of person privilege. speaker: yes. speaker: commissioner keane. speaker: since i was referenced by the speaker relating to those comments and those were comments that i did make, i did not make those comments with any degree of pride. i made those comments with a tremendous amount of admiration for the gentleman who persevered through a nightmare in order to get his complaint heard, but i certainly wasn't saying that that process was in any way desirable. i was saying just the opposite. the process was shameful, and i agree with you in terms of what you were saying. and the idea of it having taken that long and him having to go through all of those

hoops is something that i and my colleagues took a lesson from. i haven't been on this commission very long, but i'm sure that we all took quite a lesson from it. you make excellent point. i think he made great points, and those comments of mine praising him echoes your comments. it was not my, being loud of the process. it was just the opposite. speaker: the next item is a discussion and possible action on matters under chapter 2. speaker: i would like to make public comment, please. speaker: please. speaker: i'm peter warfield and director user of association. ten years ago i brought a complaint to the sunshine ordinance which was successfully pursued and ultimately went to the ethics commission.

that complaint was, i believe, the first in a series of complaints that allen grossman brought to the attention of at a later time. it was included in the civil grand jury's report calling this body, the ethics commission, a sleeping watch dog. that was the title of the grand jury's report. i wanted to say something with following up on something i don't know if you're aware of or not, but shortly after that report came out, the sleeping watch dog report, bow and behold the sunshine task force found another violation that they sent to the ethics commission. that concerns the library of the president commission and the

then president gomez who shouted down a member of the public when she tried to speak at a library commission meeting. you took this matter up, and found in words that i'm not exactly able to quote, since she wasn't an elected official or department head, you said you didn't have the power to basically unseat her, but you sent a letter to the mayor saying that her behavior was basically outrageous and fell below any standard of decency and public service that should apply, and recommended that she be sacked. that letter got no response whatsoever from the mayor. and after a year, i believe a number of, what loosely is known as sunshine policy folks came to remind you, and you then sent a second letter a year or more later reminding the mayor of the first and asking him to take

action. that letter also was never responded to. eventually, and i'm a little uncertain about the timelines and i'm sure that everybody else here can tell you, eventually a year ago, the mayor did not reappoint jooul gomez, the president of the library commission. we have reappointed in the meantime, and who had been reelected president, he also did not reappointment vice president lee munson so in march, they ceased to serve on the library commission. and haven't been heard from again at the library commission. thanks. speaker: the next item on the agenda is actions on chapter 2 of the ethics commission -- in violation of the sunshine ordinance. under

chapter 2, there's a burden. the respondant should therefore please feel free and make their presentation. this matter relates to ethics complaint 01-140107. speaker: good evening, commissioners. i'm john sancrow the director of the commission. i have a few points that i'd like to make sure in addition to what i've already submitted to all of you. speaker: to be clear, you have five minutes. speaker: commissioners, because this case is being considered under a chapter 2 referral from the sunshine commission task force, and

staff did not conduct an investigation. mr. grossman's argument of -- it lacks validity. the notion that the commission, by virtue of its bi laws has pre-waived client privilege -- the by laws -- the court of appeals made that the charter comes to the sunshine ordinance. in terms of waiver of the attorney client privilege, the withheld communications was between me and my staff and the city attorney's office. none of these communications were with members of the commission. as such, i know in way will serve the commission's legal responsibilities. because none of these communications were with a commission member, if there was a waive, it would have been my decision to make. he continues to

insist that the documents were disclosed. they were not. the charter was clear then and is clear now. the court of appeal has affirmed this. the supreme court refuse to hear an appeal. this issue has been exhausted. mr. grossman continues to demand the city's resources -- it's rolled up and the issue should come to a close and i ask that you respectfully find there was no violation. speaker: questions for mr. sancrow? speaker: i have a couple of questions, mr. sancrow. mr. grossman, in his statement says that you went to the task force and said you did not know how many records were withheld and how many pages were in there and you never read them. speaker: that's what i said at the time yes. speaker: why didn't you, before going to the task force determine

what the records were and how did you withhold them if you didn't know what they were. speaker: the staff reviewed all the documents. there were a number of them. and then i gave it to the city attorney to determine which was discloseable. speaker: when did that happen? speaker: shortly after the documents were made. speaker: who on the staff reviewed the documents? speaker: catherine and again, the city attorney. speaker: who is the city attorney? speaker: andrew shan, i believe. speaker: when did you become aware of what was withheld? speaker: um, at the time that we sent the response to the disclosure request. speaker: when was that, approximately? speaker: i believe we sought an extension, so probably a couple of weeks. speaker: a couple of weeks. what does that mean? speaker: after the request was

made within 14 days. speaker: by june 5, 2013 you didn't know what was withheld or hasn't read them? i'm sorry, i'm confused on the timeline. speaker: no, i didn't read the documents. i accepted the recommendation of the staff and the city attorney. speaker: but at some point you read the documents and reviewed them, right? speaker: much later. speaker: when was that? speaker: after -- i think when the original lawsuit was filed. speaker: okay. i don't have any further questions. mr. grossman. thank you, mr. sancrow. speaker: i know the commissions started the hear, but i thought perhaps you would address the point i made about your conflict, which is

so obvious and so apparent that the only fact that i come second, it seems that it's being heard through me. the commission cannot hear this matter because of its obvious conflict of interest that i sent out in my memorandum. mr. sancrow realize a year and a half ago because he had proposed at a meeting that you amend the regulations to exclude the commission, himself, and the staff from the sunshine regulations that are the basis for this hearing. and he did it to avoid the appearance of any possible conflict. you declined to

adopt his proposal. obviously, appropriate to do that. in any case at the end of the discussion at the meeting, the commissioner said that the commissioners would recruse themselves and would be adjudicated. it's more dramatic because under the charter, the commission is responsible for everything that mr. sancrow does. period. so in effect, when you hear this, you're adjudicating or judging your own actions which seems to me to be a pretty low standard in order to move the hearing along. anyway, there are a couple of issues involved here, and i couldn't hear mr. sancrow well enough, but there is the issue of the waiver that i raised in the

memorandum because in my view, of course, i'm a lawyer of only 60 plus years experience, i think that that by law constitutes the waiver as does the one where the commission agrees enforce the open government laws, which is precisely is what's involved here. in any case, mr. sancrow believes that this is a single issue case. again, in my memorandum, it's clear that there were three violations involved in the order. not just the question of the attorney/client privilege and its applicablity. those remain to be enforced. if you go ahead despite your conflict and hear it that's what you would be addressing. but i think i

have a larger point to make, and it's this. the adverse effects of the litigation and the commissions ten year history under mr. sancrow of failing enforce task force referrals creates a serious problem for the commission and its constituency. the puppet. the trust given to the commission to support and enforce public access in san francisco is broken. and the commission has the fact of seat of the decision power in the public access area to mr. sancrow who is blatant hostility is document and well known to those who are interested in open government. his disrespect of task force was -- in their appearances before him. mr. propel who has been before you several times and is a task force member was begging mr.

sancrow, tell us more about these records. what kind are they? how many are there? okay. with an important prevision, the ordinance is unenforcible. that further eroded open government and the commissions -- i believe the commission has to ask itself if this new reality is what it wants as a sole policy power. i'll go over the five minutes, about 20 seconds. in any event, the commission must decide to either refute the directors action and takes steps through the effected revision or amend its two bylaws to reflect the fact that it will no longer enforce the ordinance or actively enforce all ethics

laws and rules including open government laws. in some, at a cost of $150,000 to the tax payers, mr. sancrow with deny znswer of the city attorney went off on his own and left the mess that you now need to fix. thank you. speaker: any questions for mr. grossman. speaker: i have a question. mr. grossman, can you argue somehow or another that mr. sancrow violated the open government ordinances when the courts specifically ruled against you on that question. speaker: i'm conceding that the privileges no longer -- the aggregation of the privilege and the public access area under the ordinances is no longer enforceable. end the story. but there are other previsions in the ordinances that he violated. speaker: what are those previsions? tell me.

speaker: what are they? speaker: tell me what they are. speaker: well, one is you have to identify the records in some way. were they e-mails? was there an opinion? have you to do that. speaker: the court reviewed them, and -- speaker: sir, if i could interrupt you. when the filed a lawsuit, the first thing the city attorney did was turnover 4 of the 28 withheld records, okay. so it's not a case where this is, you know, open and close and just the way it was reviewed by the court of appeal on one issue. but there's two other issues. there's two other previsions of the ordinances that's cited in the task force order. those are the ones that are involved. speaker: i'm going to make myself probably look -- i'm having trouble with words. i think it's age

and others. but i try to make a case to you about these two other violations, it runs contrary to my argument. you shouldn't even be hearing this case. why are you hearing it? speaker: so mr. grossman, on the point you made, i'm looking at the decision in order of determination and it fines the violation for not releasing the records. the vice chair had a hard time figuring out what other violations you think the sunshine ordinance found because looking at the decision in order, i don't see anything else. and i certainly don't want to make you -- speaker: do have you the order of the task force in front of you? speaker: yes, i do. speaker: and the referral? speaker: we do have the referral as well. but i mean, if your

argument is that -- speaker: it's a fact. there's three violations. speaker: there's only one of the three. speaker: can you point us to it because that is an issue i was struggling with? speaker: okay. speaker: okay. september 4, the task force [inaudible] in violation voted or refer the complaint to the -- to the board of supervisors and the commission for violating section 6721 b,

6727 a and b and 6724 b-1 i and triple i and triple i is the privilege prevision. speaker: what is the date of the document you're looking at? other speaker: i'm reading from my memorandum that you all got on page 4 at the top. speaker: i have your memorandum, but i would like to see this. staff, do you know where this is in the packet? speaker: chair hur, -- chair hur. it's on the second page, full

paragraph. speaker: november 21, 2013. speaker: that's the date of the letter, and then on the second page, first paragraph at the september 4, 2013 meeting. speaker: naive questions for mr. grossman? speaker: thank you, mr. grossman. rebuttal. speaker: i'm not finished. oh, i'm sorry. i am finished. no more questions.

speaker: i'll be brief, commissioners, and i would like to note for the record that i really don't appreciate the personal comments, levelled at me. it just happens all too often. and i believe at the ordinary of determination in the referral letter are not -- are conflicting. 67.27, mr. grossman wanted a list of what was in the documents, and how many there were. this is also called a privilege log. under the sunshine ordinance privilege logs are not required in 67.27. you don't have to create documents that don't exists to answer requests. 67.24 is about pre-litigation claim and no pre-litigation claims existed in this case. that's all have i to

say. thank you. speaker: any other questions for mr. sancrow? speaker: public comment? speaker: yes, thank you very much. gratified that you recognize the obstacles we have face. i have not gotten the impression that you've recognized that in the past. it's gratifying now. i appeared before you on september 23rd 2013 some brought mr. grossman lawsuit to your attention. the important issues and the necessity for you to look into it. you made no response to me. do you categorically ignore statements from the pro democracy rabel. if it's a complaint

-- that means he's doing something right. the city attorney turned over records after mr. grossman filed the lawsuit, but at the time, mr. grossman filed the lawsuit, the response that mr. sancrow had offered, instead of the ones that were offered to the a pellet court was, and i quote, you have already received all documents responsive to your request. we're not required to create documents that not do exist. i consider this matter closed. now, if you look at the issues that should have been responded to with respect to mr. grossman's complaint, we don't have to create documents as a sunshine equivalent of go jump in the lake. do you know who primo levee is. he tells the story of these walking under an eve one day. they're

not only starving to death, but dying of thirst. he pulls an ice sickle off an eve and sticks is it in his mouth. premo levee turns and say, why. and the prison guard says, "here is berone." isn't that what mr. sancrow has said to me and mr. grossman. i don't speak for mr. grossman, but if the defenses had been offered to the appellant court had been offered to him, he might have made a different decision, but more important than that is that everybody is entitled to a reason. levee

doesn't call it anti- democracy. he calls it anti- humanity because we're all entitled to reason. it's a field of reason that we all cross which creates the bond of humanity. and that's what's really at stake here. look at this case again. speaker: i'm peter ward field. i'm not a party to this case. but certainly recognized as the previous speaker has mentioned, the significance of -- as to many people the reason for open government and the good functioning