test. >> welcome to the may meeting of city and county of san francisco commissioner president keane commissioner hur commissioner renne all are present and accounted for and again, i apologize for the delay and call item number 2 public comment on items noted appearing or not appearing on the agenda within jurisdiction ethics

commission do we have any public comments? >> can you hear me, you, hear me thank you joe kelly junior is my name i wanted to see if any discussion i don't see anything in the agenda regarding the possible action regarding for that it is your letter sent to supervisor farrell. >> that was continued to the june 5th meeting at the request felt complainants attorney who's brother died and had to go to a funeral that was occurring today so we continued it to that date ever june 5th. >> correct me if i am wrong but the action that would have per

penalty the issue i misunderstood was something staff was going to be working on rather than i could be wrong i thought staff was going to return with some revised document. >> and that's on the agenda for the june 5th meeting. >> okay. thank you. >> larry bush from friends ever mists ethics i'm going to ask the discussion include who the statute of limitations apply that's the issue that was raised in the last ethics commission meeting if urge to have an opinion from the city attorney as to whether the statute of limitations continues to toll or

if not for example the city's position with the police department they dismissed the charges against the officers because - but the city agreed it couldn't be dismissed because once something is in progress the toll can't be stent. >> any other public comment returning to item 3 discussion on a possible action under the chapter three regulations for violation of the sunshine ordinance memo and staff report attachment sponsor complainants respondent to city attorney and from david that all peel and the

complaint as you recall the commission this matter was before the commission at the april meeting the april the commission dealt with one aspect it was continued until the second aspect of it was continued for this meeting and i guess mr. chair. >> yes. >> commissioner president keane the chair remembers i asked to be recused so i will go ahead and leave i wanted to make one point put something on the record and i don't mean to influence anything that is occurred but i think since the last meeting on my voicemail at the law school i've had 8 phone messages from

many stash i don't know what they were as soon as i recognized her voice i deleted it i don't have any idea not to perjury her but a matter of record i'm recused from that it is proper to do and perhaps the chair might indicate that is not a good idea with that, i'll take a seat. >> i believe commissioner hur you asked in a sense to have this matter whether or not we could look at the amending that was in question whether or not it was properly withheld and

whether or not the conduct of respondent was such it waived whatever privilege might have existed the complainant is not here tonight but she has agreed we can go ahead with it; is that correct? >> yes. >> and i believe that the respondent is here is she not? yes >> do you- have you - has the looked at the looked at e-mail. >> i have the city attorney said why the commission was not able to look at the e-mail in

camera there was not a violation of the section equivalent code 1040 and 41 this e-mail was properly withheld and not described as to how we found a violation of a failure to provide the - i recommend we find in violation of the code. >> any second to that recommendation. >> second. >> public comment? >> good evening david pill paul as an individual two points under page 8 of the commissions regulation for handing the allegations of excuse me. regulations for the sunshine ordinance page 8 chapter eight

matters heard under this chapter that are 3 circumstances under which you hear the chapter three allegations one is an allegation of violation by an elected official or department head and two from the district attorney take no action for 40 days following an order of the task force and 3 staffer initiates a complaint none of 3 conditions were satisfied i've spent time looking at and section of the ordinance i think the closest thing is one a two no evidence before the commission the complainant saw it in order for the supervisor of records or the task force and that the substantially the district attorney or attorney general

took no action you may take the action proposed but again, the complainant if satisfy the conditions necessary to bring this before you and if you're suggesting that was a close call and your choosing to hear this this is a a bad precedent when when we don't have the authority to hear and complaint we're going to do that anyway, that's a bad idea i concur if you're not going to find a further violation to the extent that was a memo from the city attorney it was referenced by the report and commissioner hur i'll ask you to waive privilege and make that memo available or ask if it be redpraftd in a way to go to the public the way this commission

has an in camera of review this hat not happened it's interesting to see when logic and the city attorney sees i'll be interested i ask you waive privilege or the document be redrafted for public comment thank you other public comment? hearing none i'll call the motion >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? hearing none the motion is carried before commissioner president keane you can reassume your seat. >> item number 40 deduction and possible action on the director recruit process and dispatched was a recruitment proposal sent out by h.r. and i

believe also is a you received a copy of the one response which h.r. referred to that proposal they sent it out to 6 of vendors who previously been vested by the city and previously been provided the recruitment service and received and gave them a return date of 26th and the one response from alliance resources consulting, llc was the only one received and no indication of as of the 26th that the other any

of the other 5 intended to respond although it maybe possible that there was one who would consider it if we extended the time i think first, we should deal with the question before we get to a recruitment process itself in the recruitment proposal where we stand mr. sinclair on the budget question. >> excuse me. mr. chair i'm going to step away from this matter thank you. >> so we have identified and it began $18,000 plus for this expense i noticed the proposal is $20,000 the 16 hundred

necessary is out of budget in the fiscal year that starts in july so nearly all is in the process of being enxhurmd. >> at least as of today, the firm has affirming $18,000. >> $18,000 4 hundred. >> i'm sorry that can be dedicated to paying for recruitment services. >> correct. >> okay. is there any discussion on the budget question as to whether or not we ought to consider spend that announcement of money or not spend it. >> i would submit we this is informative it is nice to see we have the money to spend on it

but that's where we will land even that proposal will move forward with the set of negotiations that could bring that number down i want to take a slower step by step are we comfortable are moving forward in this progress we agree we're moving forward in this process to have a recruiter and we're comfortable with identifying no more than $20,000 or discussion around capping it at $20,000 if we entertain the other proposal and it comes in at 25 we will provide for robust services again so i think we want to have a bit of a separate discussion how much it will allow us to

taylor a set ever services we can compare apples to apples to either one certainly with one but possible 23 $20,000. >> commissioner hur. >> so i do think we talked about last time it will be probably beneficial to have a research i agree with commissioner vice president andrews you guys chair and the vice chair should vet them if this is the right firm to use i have no problem with the expenditure and like if another proposal comes in and you all recommend that with only we should revisit at the time but on the macro if we find one that is suitable we should. >> so is there any other

discussion on just the question on who we ought to retain a research within a budget possible budget limitations of $20,000 ? or. >> or 25 i think. >> commissioner vice president andrews indicated that in the vetting process from the two of you saw some reason the $25,000 amount would be predicament given the needs of two 25. >> i don't think we need to really say 20 or nothing i go for the discretion between the two of you that commissioner vice president andrews suggests. >> keeping in mind i certainly have a fiscal head i don't want to put