good evening, commissioners my name is chris wright the executive director of the committee on jobs and registered contact lobbyist just to i guess refer to some of the comments before i'm concerned about double report as a contact lobbyist i have to file which is fine i love the net file system it is great i would hope that the commission and the staff are combrrnd in this legislation to make it as seem also as possible not to file another paper reports or have to pay another fee or whatever it should be incorporated within the net filing system we currently have i also want to point out that an issue on section 2.110 which is payment 11 lines 11 and

telephone it refers to the corporations the name of each officer of that corporation that could be a lot so let's say you're a tier one bang have offices all over the gloib want to put two atms under the district you have to file or do a get a conditional use permit having meetings and getting people involved and engaged i'm not sure it is necessary to have all 2 thousand offices to be submitted to the ethics commission unless you're the head of human resources to be listed there's probably a way to russet that so we know who you are going after this is going to the comments by commissioner hur that plain clothes say you don't

want all 2 thesis officers at a bank to go be filed under the initial draft any less closer gloss hurdle it is important to get this done right the first time and i'll ask you review that one portion a comment on the airbnb i know there are a lot of the commercials i'm an attorney but the commercials as played will not be included or covered by this legislation and. >> what would you propose instead of current language the name of the officer that controlled the expenditure or who authorized the expenditure or the name of the company but you don't need ever officer of a

large business. >> thank you. >> good evening i'm sharon agency a form ethics director from 2003 and friends of ethics and in the interest of time commissioners i strongly urge support of this measure for the november ballot ethics commission has the power and i urge you to eye our authority and place the measure on the ballot thank you. >> thank you any other comments i will call the question and i will say off the record that the reason why seconded why i support it primarily because it only brings us in line with the

other local ethics commissions and jurisdictions in california and does reestablish what was the rules in san francisco prior to the simplification of the lobbyists any other comment before - >> just a couple commissioner renne one represents to the proposal that was made i get it i see a lot of sense to a situation you have to put down the names of 2 thousand officers what if we had an amendment to lines 11 and telephone that limited the officers to the sea level officers you're getting the main officers of the corporation and the people that actually were directly involved

the authorities. >> just to clarify you when say sea level i'm not familiar with and like executive liquor the ceo or the cfo or a chief financial officer the fees. >> what would be effective. >> would you recommend putting in the language sea level? we would need something else less parochial >> i apologize. >> you could do who authorized the expenditure i'd like to put sea level. >> my intent to include both but i'm not sure that sea level

will be an appropriate term i am not it that something we can workout. >> well, they're officer is what they are. >> corporate officers. >> corporate officers that's clears enough their corporate officers. >> like ceo or cfo. >> like the directions and officers are generally all the ceo, cfos a corporate officer. >> should we put the joy and danger each of corporate officer for example ceo, co o, cfo what line your proposing to modify. >> lines 11 and 12 of page 11.

>> just by way of suggestion i know generally in terms of california law for corporations i have to have a cfo and ceo and secretary i guess. i don't know if you want secretary but is it could be those 3 for example, and audio in the person that actually was in charge of making the expenditure it wouldn't quality of life you ct o. >> or c i o. >> yeah. i think that makes sense it is maybe the ceo's or the cfo e.r. secretary and the authorizing officer that authorized the expenditure. >> sure a friendly amendment mr. chair. >> my other question for the

group comment i accept what commissioner vice president haney said we can't fix everything or legislation late everybody or everything in the actual ordinances there will be regulations that are implemented but as a direction to the staff and amending the regulation we have to think about how employees of nonprofits and for profits whoever are counted in this clearly that contemplates but give sufficient direction to for profit and nonprofit how to be counted and 31 how they should count properly. >> call the question, 2013 opposed? hearing none it carries

unanimously 5 to 0. >> turn to item number 4 discussion and possible action regarding commissioners responses to the 2014, 2015 civil grand juror reports reporting to whistle blower reporting. >> that report was issued a couple of weeks ago and the ethics commission is required to respond that is fairly 12r5ur8d the service grand jury is recommending to make improvements to the whistle blower ordinance in the commission adopts the language the draft language i've presented the commission will be xhimentd to taking on this

project i expect of we'll have the corporation of 4 departments we will dealer to do this in 2016. >> any commissioners are any comments on the proposed responses that the staffer is prepared to the recommendations? call for any public comment >> good evening commissioners and mr. sincroy i'm a with his i will blower i brought any complaint and my retaliation complaint in the ethics commission in 2010 all of them were dismissed i sued the city and got a $750,000 and the

city had to pay $1.2 million hit for the taxpayers notice of violation records show that whistle blowers claims have been investigated since june of 1995 some 60 retaliation complaints through the notifications not one zero have been substantiated it is for the benchmark issued by the big corporation that studies 8 thousand whistle blower hostile line it is 10 percent internationally here zero percent so this staggering statistics suggests the ethics commission is complexity in the repression of city employees with break ranks in order to serve the public interest this

commissioner is a dead end for whistle blowers first of all you whistle blowers have threats not assets your investigations are sfoishl and there's aimed at ex-ordinarily respondent that's the intention instead of being have not you do submit to city its third reading who's duties to defend city officials that are exposes by whistle blowers are that the city attorney is opposed to whistle blowers those your staff is afraid to substantiate retaliation allegations if they did they would face budget cuts and laugh offends and traded the same things it where in relation he will blowers are treated as threat

so nevertheless, if you continue to relocate and buyer retaliation claims the whole operation is unget california and incredible start bid implementing the civil grand jury recommendations we need a change in attitude naming started to view whistle lowers as potential assets instead of liability until that happens i would recommend avoiding the ethics commission and taking whistle blower concerns circle to the public to the media or the courts thank you very much. >> thank you and i'm patrick shaw i'm hoping the ethics commission will find a way since you passed putting a

ballot measure on regarding expenditure lobby that you'll find a way to put a measure to strengthen the whistle blower protection ordinance because my hunch is under the current assignment and at the board of supervisors they're not going to take action i just finished up my menu article that focuses on the you go will i truth to retarlts keep their city employment awhile those who are wrongfully retaliated against don't i followed up with the city attorney's office dr. curry submitted a records request in

2012 seeking records on prohibited personal practice lawsuits that were filed against the city as time i wrote an article in april of 2012 hundred and 5 such cases in the last 3 years under mayor ed lee it has soared and another hundred and 87 cases have been added for a total of 2 hundred and 92 of those while they have been only 14 wrongful terms cases between 2007 and 12 there are have been 23rd settled in the last 3 years and 9 outstanding a total of 46 we have an epidemic of wrongful termination in this city you need to do something about this

to retarlts shouldn't be coping their jobs awhile dedicated civil servant like - let me find a few names like derrick occur and woman at the police commission that was fired by executive officer lost her job kelly o'hare and then joanne helping in her over at the city attorney's office you really need to find the ethical encourage to protect the whistle blowers yourself.

>> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners alana smith a friend of ethics but the past floor person of the 2014-2015 grand jury not a representative of the current jury i appreciate that the jury that service ended up the 2014-2015 hearing picked up our recommendations to look at the whistle blower and to strengthen it and it's a good step in the right direction i appreciate staffs draft this they presented in terms of responding to the recommendations and that the responseed seem to be positive responses that you're willing to look at the recommendations and side what you can do it is fairly valuable i want to remind you once you have at represents from the civil grand jury you

have a certain obligation to answer with specific the way the penal code reads is that if you are not saying this is unreasonable if you are saying if you're not going to do if you, in fact, are saying you're going to do it the represents has not been implement within a set timeframe so if it has not been implemented you should be responding to have it implemented by such and such or 3 the recommendations requires further analysis and the agency must done the additional studies needed and the grand jury expects the recorded within 6 months as i read the elements

you have in front of you that's basically where you are it needs further analysis you don't have the excuse me. the issues you should be looking at you need to lay out a bit of a game plan to basically respond to the grand juror and the other board of supervisors to say within 6 months this was we're going to be able to do and move forward we'll give you periodic update. >> thank you for the time. >> thank you. >> commissioners charley again i want to let you know in the past, when the consistent difficulties with the sunshine task force and how this body was going to proceeded to handle complaints from were referred to you by the sunshine finding body

what you did was deliberated to commissioner harmon that was the form president and she went to work as a subcommittee won i believe and came up with a set of recommendations for you to as a body how to proceed with dealing with sunshine complaints that have been referred the same could be true with the witnesses he will blower that process can apply you can pollinate a subcommittee person to take into account what this body does with whistle blower complaints and what i could do better commissioner harmon spent some time on that question of the sunshine task force it

may have been a year she the great job i think this is a loose end and now you're about 20 years old we should grow up. >> you've anticipated i'm going to see if i can get a volunteer. >> any other public comment? any further discussion among the commission? i am going to ask if anyone wants to volunteer as commissioner renne did with the legislation we just discussed but would like to take on as a task to assisted in responding to and prep response to the recommendations?

>> you're putting us all on the spot. >> hearing none at the moment i'll see whether or not i can find a volunteer maybe i'll have to take it on. >> achiever i have a question maybe for the city attorney one finding i had a question about number 4 the changing of the burden of proof for the complainant is that something we can implement? >> so my understanding the burden of proof set up it mirrors sort of a lot how did the statutory claims come up and i have preserve and interpret that as subjecting to the prelims of the preliminary interview stage that is something the commission can

take up that is one of the project on the going forward calendar that's a reoccurring issue who is what should preliminary be so it showcase something we can take into account. >> thank you. >> turning to item number 6 on the agenda the discussion and possible for the matters subject under chapter three of the ethics commission report as the commissioners may recall this is a matter that was before us some months ago and is now came back to us from the sunshine committee after the sunshine task force after we sent it back to them. >> that's correct but by way of classification did the commission approve the draft responses to the - >> before i all right. i've

been requirement i didn't get a specific motions does anybody have a motion to approve the responds. >> second. >> all right. any discussion? any public comment from we vote on this? >> if i heard correctly you're going to approve the response to the civil grand jury report. >> yes. >> it is very vague maybe we'll do it partially agree at some point consider that can. >> it would be more reinsuring if someone takes this on a a subcommittee like commissioner renne. >> the other comment. >> i'm sure i didn't see the agenda the ginsburger matter. >> they've reminded me i didn't get a vote on approving the

responses to the generalizing report item 5 before there's a motion and i will call the question. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? hearing none it is passed unanimously now it is item number 6 which is the ethics complaint regarding the alleged violations of the sunshine ordinances and i don't know is the complainant here? the record reflects the complainant was notified and is there anyone on behalf of respondent mr. ginsburg >> good evening. i'm aaron are the rec and park department to speak on this item i'll be brief

we urge you to adapt a represents for the staff report we fold the city attorney responding with the council they've included that the violation of law right to privacy was important and the disclosure of their personal information has not shed light into the departments partition of the wait list more broadly i'll say that we as the department we respect we have the right of the privacy for the residents and the members of the public we serve and we believe that it is essential to maintain the highest level of service so we urge you to find according and no violation of the sunshine ordinance occurred thank you. >> any other public comment?

>> patrick shaw i was disturbed you were reaching a different findings than the commissioner my recollection of the testimony before the notification eir ethics commission by rec and park representatives was that they were just following the good government guide as commissioner renne has rightfully noted carries in weigh in law i don't think if you're reaching a different finding than with john was i tenderloin with our guidelines for hearing sunshine cases but i'm flifrm of the opinion that department heads

are responsible for the actions of their subordinates no matter how you dice your interpretation of the sunshine ordnance i would strongly speak against this motion i think you need to do the exact opposite and find that mrb /* mr. ginsburg violated the ordinance. >> thank you. any other comment? i'm going to summarize what at staffs recommendations on this particular matter. >> certainly. >> at the lastly time this was horde there were two issues one to this consideration of whether the mr. gibner staff was

properly noticed in terms of the flying sunshine matter and an issue to putting that aside whether they in fact violated the sunshine ordinance by redacting this information and at this point as the second question staff had pretty much the same position as they do now but battery commissioner renne disagreed with that assessment that went back to the task force and it was vague as to exactly you know what was expected we didn't get another hearing they wrapped up and wrote some finding from our prospective we think that by this time it is a long time and everybody is on notice and know what's going on

we recommend a finding on the merits and i think staffs position has not changed that is their is it is in fairness to what people say it doesn't could kr0r7d with what the city attorney said there's a right to privacy it is triggered with the right to address information and that sort of thing a transitions a balancing test that is the key to determination is, you know, the individuals right to privacy and what the releases of the information on the funning of government we think that is placard the sfgovtv addressing the information we don't think that shows anything in terms of of the functioning governments and stronger standing that you know address the information didn't come into play