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 of open good law.

there's many conflicts that's problematic. some have been mentioned. the basic hearing by your body of your director. i understand that there was a -- that commissioner hayon gave an okay to an extension at one point with no commission action involved. and of course, there's the whole question of whether the commission ever took a decision to pursue the case in the first place. mr. grossman very clearly stated in his memo to you, dated -- and it's on page 4 repeating some of what you said, it's a january 15 memo that you provided to you in your current agenda packet and on the top of page 4, he quotes from the sunshine -- he quotes at the september 4, 2014

meeting, they found sancrow in violation of the sunshine ordinance and voted to refer the complaint to the board of supervisors and the ethics commission were violated section 21.67 d. that's number one. 67.21 a and b. that's number two. and 67.24 b-1 i and triple i. that's three. and then he goes on page four with a detailed description of what those laws say, and what specifically was mr. sancrow's failure with respect to those laws, and he's presumably quoting the sunshine referral. so that's something that is not just an old document. it's in your agenda document right now. mr. sancrow comes up with a puzzling chestnut. you don't have to create documents

that don't exist. certainly you do. if there is a notation required on records as to why they were withheld, that's creating a document. there are other sections of the sunshine task force requiring for example, what i call info on info. if i want to know what is the nature and extent of your documents on such and such subject because i don't know what they are and i want to focus my request, a department is required to present under section 67.21 an explanation. it's not a cajun -- it's not a case that have you to create a document. it's laid out to you on this agenda item. thanks. speaker: commissioners, i think a couple of issues to address.

you know, one would be the -- that the conflict of interest and then to the merits. i do have questions for the city attorney, but i want to open it up to my commissioners and save my commons to the end of discussion. speaker: i'm interested in the conflict of interest conflict. speaker: i wanted to raise with the city attorney what is the city attorney's views on this assertion that there's a conflict of interest adjudicating this matter. speaker: this is not a functional equivalent of the commission reviewing its own action. here it's reviewing the action that the staff took with respect to the decision of whether to turnover the documents. this has -- the commission wasn't consulted nor

does the commission have to be consulted since it was a decision made by the staff under the charter, the staff has the authority to conduct its own day-to-day affairs which includes responding to sunshine request. that's what it did in connection with the city attorney, so there's really no -- i don't see how this is the functional equivalent of the commission reviewing itself. even -- i think even if there was a conflict the other solution is not that this ethics commission can't hear the complaint. there's been circumstances in the past where the commission has referred out the investigation of a particular matter to another [inaudible] to conduct and then present. there's not a circumstance in which the commission could recuse itself for readjudicating this type of a complaint. speaker: could i followup on that.

speaker: sure, mr. keane. speaker: you said it's the power of the staff to take certain actions. in your opinion, does the staff have the authority without informing or getting the permission of the board to go ahead and institute litigation? speaker: yes. speaker: you do. speaker: are you referring to the facts of this case where the petition was filed, the court found in favor, the child court found in favor of mr. grossman and the appeal was taken by mr. sancrow. speaker: let's go back to the original litigation itself. to answer into that litigation and to actually defend against mr. grossman's assertion that the materials didn't have to be turned over. can the staff independently make

that kind of determination, go forward, litigate without at least informing the board or two, at least -- or getting the permission of the board? aren't there policy matters involved in that? speaker: there's no obligation that i'm aware of to seek the commissions approval before descending itself in litigation. the decision here - speaker: defending itself in litigation. speaker: sorry, the commission -- speaker: does the staff some sort of independent body aside from the ethics commission that it would have standing to do things as a person in litigation? speaker: well here, mr.

sancrow was named as the respondent. when the task force referred the matter to the ethics commission, it was mr. sancrow who was named as a respondent and that's because of the decision on whether to turnover the documents was mr. sancrow. the body of which you're apart, oversees the staff and can set policies, but the commission has the authority to conduct its day-to-day operations, and i think part of that is, as here, if their sancrow is sued, i think he can defend himself without having to seek the opinion or seek the approval of the overseeing commission. speaker: do you think it was a good idea that mr. sancrow did not at least inform the commission and seek the approval of the commission before starting and getting involved in such a

major piece of litigation? aside from anything that might be your opinion relating to whether he can do this independently and the staff has some sort of independent power to do these things, do you think it might have been a good idea that he told us this was going on and sought out our permission to do this? speaker: i'm happy provide legal advice to the commission, but i would defer to you as to -- beyond strike legal questions, what is or is not a good idea. that's a call that i'm not qualified to make. speaker: okay. thank you. speaker: naive comments from the commissioners? speaker: [inaudible]. i'm

mortified that the city attorney never looked at the brown act and the brown act governs actions taken by the commission. and the only way that the commission can act is at a public meeting. and at the public meeting, there's public comment. so when mr. sancrow decided not to disclose and tell you about the fact that you could waive the privilege when he defended the lawsuit, when he actually lost in the superior court and he initiated and mandated this case in a court of appeal, weren't those actions by the commission. after all, who are they acting for? and that's clear under the charter. so to my mind, this advice that you just got is so typical of the city attorney's office. they were waiting for this kind of case so that they could

assert what they've been talking about for years, which is that that section of sunshine ordinance had to be dealt with. speaker: thank you, mr. grossman. speaker: commissioner, can i add one thing. speaker: he raised this before the court of appeal and it was rejected. speaker: i know. so a couple of thoughts that i have, and i'll open it up to the floor. i do not see a conflict here personally. i understand that there is the appearance of a conflict, but i don't think there's a legal conflict. we've had -- so i think we should get to the merits. on the merits, looking at the three violations that were identified, mr. grossman is correct in the referral letter, although not included in the order, they seem to refer to

the failure to identify the prevision that applies which seems to me to be contradicted by mr. macy's e-mail where he identifies the previsions. this was not a pre-litigation matter and the document that's were withheld were adjudicated by the court of appeal, and it was not found in mr. grossman's favor. in particular, the court of appeal did deal with this issue of the commission not authorizing the lawsuit and while i concur some extent with their king, that perhaps it's a policy matter that may be a different story. as a legal matter, i think it was allowable. those are my views. i'm happy to have further discussion from commissioner on the issue, on

any of the issues. is there a motion on this matter? speaker: i make a motion that we find that there is not a basis for finding that the executive director, uh, violated his obligation under -- on an appeal from the sunshine task force and bound by the findings of the court of appeals that his actions were consistent with san francisco open government ordinances. speaker: is there a second? speaker: second. speaker: all in favor. speaker: aye. speaker: opposed. hearing

none. that motion passes. speaker: next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action regarding approval of the proposed amendment to c-fro. mr. manarty, i understand you're going to be taking the charge here. speaker: mr. chair, may i? speaker: yes. speaker: i move we continue this matter to our next meeting. this is item 4, isn't it? speaker: yes. speaker: i move we continue this to our next meeting. mainly because of the nature of all of the materials and there's just so much substance involved here. we've got four inches of materials, much of which deal

with very important changes and adjustments to san francisco campaign finance ordinances which will go to the whole heart of the transparency and honesty of city government. we have a request for it to be continued for well regarded entities such as the friends of ethics. i've looked over the materials in the public comment meetings, which mr. manarti handled well and he did excellent job and his commons in regards to that. there's so much here. i have to say quite honestly, i have not suggested it in light of all the materials and all of the other recommendations that

are there. it falls under the election. we have a mayor -- mayor's election. we got this at the end -- at the beginning of the year, the holiday season, i would respectfully i ask my colleagues to let us take a little more time on this. and that it go over to the next meeting. speaker: i certainly understand that it is dense and there's a lot here. my concern withholding it over is that there are people here who are here for this item. the staff have put in a lot of time. and if we want to get it finalized for the fall, it requires a fair amount of time. but i also say that we don't have to make decisions

today if we determine that we need more time after going through it. but i think it would be useful given who has shown up and the preparation for the meeting, for us to at least address the agenda item. ms. hayon. speaker: it's helpful to me to hear the expert and learn a comment interest those interested parties that has something to add. i liked the letters we received. they were interested and helpful and enlightening and i'd like to hear from the people who are here at least even if we aren't ready to make a decision in these matters. speaker: mr. keane, would that be saepable.

speaker: with the chair is saying, i would like to propose a sort of -- split the baby type situation that we're going to look at this as something that's going to be something -- that we go ahead with what we have. and put it on for the next meeting as well for anything further that might be added and also for final decisions. i think that would -- that should take care of the concerns that are raised about having people here now. be able to speak to it which i respect. speaker: okay. any -- speaker: i would like to hear from the people who are here. their comments on it and at the conclusion, we decide whether to defer a final decision given their comments.

speaker: that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. speaker: could i also add to commissioner reanne's understanding. in deferring a final decision, we can also take up additional analysis as well the next time. speaker: sure. we can put anything else on the agenda for february. speaker: i think that takes care of my concerns. speaker: okay. so mr. manarti, without further or do, if you can introduce the item and speaker: we'll probably have a debate about which accomplished that goal, but i applaud the effort and know it's not an easy task.

speaker: thank you, chair. hur. i propose i generally introduce the matter. give you a sense overall of what kind of initiated this, the rationale for it, and then if it's okay with you, i can walk-through -- very generally, the three components and it might be appropriate at this point -- speaker: i would like for you to do it one at a time. let's take the first one. introduce it and let's hear from public comment on it. and then we can go to the next two. speaker: that's great. speaker: sound reasonable to the commissioners. speaker: shouldn't it be deferred. speaker: we haven't decided it be deferred. speaker: we haven't decided it's not deferred because you started

the conversation. you started hearing the item. speaker: it's an agenized item and we're addressing it. speaker: it seems to me there's a larger issue reert -- larger issue rather than going item by item. speaker: you can make your comments during public item. you can start by item 1. i'll give you a background. these amended to c-fro were prepared because they in staff's opinion, common sense, granted very technical, but common sense sort of changing that are along time coming with respect to see fro and the complexity that's inherited in the reporting, the disclaimer requirement, but frankly the limits

which have been either declared unconstitutional or likely to be declared unconstitutional by a court. with respect to the requirements, although common sense and i think fair with all respect to all political actors involved, again, technical common sense, but also significant because really what staff is trying to do here is lower the barrier for third parties in san francisco. as the memo hopefully is clear about, there's a lot of complexion even with c-fro. the effort was to offer something that's fairly uncontroversial and it would effect all parties the same way and would be redy for the 2015

election. i would contrast that with something -- it's a multi step process there where we're talking about things like is it a right policy decision. is it factually justified. is it legally okay. and then finally whether the language is okay. so that is what motivated this. there are the three issues, one as i said, the limits, second is the third party reporting requirements and third is the disclaimer requirements. and with respect to the first, it's fairly -- this is hopefully the most straight forward for everyone. there's two previsions that, by virtue of a case law, this commission is no longer enforcing. for the sake of clarity and

at the commission's direction, we've just proposed repeal of those two. one is an aggregate limit, and that's comparable limit struck down in the hutching case -- i'm sorry, i have it reversed. the second is the aggregate limit and the first is the limit to third party packs that's making expenditures with respect to city elections. because they have been struck down or likely to be struck down, we're proposing for the commission's recommendation that we repeal those previsions. speaker: one point 11482 is the one based on mac huching that has been struck down. speaker: i mistake. speaker: 11414 c is the packs

that hasn't been expressly stricken, but -- speaker: it has been. it has been joined from enforcing. speaker: i'm sorry, the city has not enjoined by a district court. where is that in the a -- where is that in the appellant matter if at all? speaker: the matter has not been appealed. speaker: okay. speaker: public comment? speaker: thank you, i'm larry bush on behalf of the friends of ethics. that consists of a dozen of people active on ethics issues including five former commissions of this body. former staff in charge of signs and common

cause for san francisco, and others who have been involved in passing legislation. we have several points that we raised in the interested person's meeting. we think mr. mcmarty did excellent job of -- we appreciate this effort because it's a stand out to what we've seen in the past. i would like to extend our appreciation on that part. one of the issues we raised repeatedly was this was narrowly drawn that it didn't encompass the issues on the table that need to be daelts with in the upcoming elections and as part of that question, this body never had a public hearing to discuss the fact that you were going to take up this issue and allow the public to comment on whether or not there should be a broader review of the issues that are involved and any changes to the campaign finance

reform. we sent you a member - owe -- we sent a memo. some of those recommendations from the commission are two years old. and they still have not been put into the law or proposed to you in this review. concerning you held those issues, had full discussion on them, ask the staff to draft them. no draft came back, and it's not in this. i think that's one of the reasons why we said this needs to be held over for a fuller discussion of all the issues. i would recommend you have someone go through as we did the last two years of minutes and pull out all the times when the commission asked for legislation to be drafted dealing with this law which are not included. secondly, we're going into election season where it matters a great deal as to whether we're building public trust. i've discussed it and we've

discussed it at our interest of public meeting. we allow elected officials to have a general purpose committee which is not a candidate meeting. a general purpose meeting can accept contributions of any amount from any source where a candidate cannot. what we have seen is we have an elected official who has done that and accepted contributions, over $25,000 who has business for the city and being decide by that official. that will not be touched at all. it will be easy to have a prevision that says that the same restrictions that apply to candidate committees would apply to committees that's controlled by a candidate or office holder because you have to deal with public perception of honesty. thank you. speaker: thank you.

speaker: good evening, commissioners. just very briefly, i would like to applaud staff's effort to clean up the contribution limits that mr. manarti just reviewed with you. it's respects to limits and it performs with a case law imposed by the u.s. supreme court and the district court here in the 9th circuit. thank you. speaker: so i'm happy to hear from other commissioners on this particular one. i mean, to me this one seems pretty clear. if we think we need to defer it to another meeting, i'm happy to consider this with other issues, but i also don't want to have to revisit things that we've already addressed. you know, to mr. bush's point, i also

don't think that we have to deal with all c fro changes in one meeting. there's other c fro changes we can address. i do think mr. bush raises a good point if there are things that we haven't addressed that we should be, let's take those up. i don't know that we should holdup all proposed changes because it doesn't include everyone we want to change in c fro. but i open it up to my fellow commissioners. speaker: i'm prepared to move that we -- on decision point 1 that we approved the section 1.114 a 2 and 1.114 c as set forth in the [inaudible]. speaker: mr. keane. sp