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. >> ny 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 when those are as i said and secondly, that our understanding is that essentially the gentleman is wanted the information so he could get the other people to sort of contact for lack of a better term to get that based on our ascertainment is consistent with the city attorney's office so that's why we recorded that. >> if i understood it with

wasn't his complaint there was a waited for the slips and someone that was further counsel on the wait list got moved up and beyond why he needed anything about their contact information because somebody get moved up at the bottom and now at the top what more does he need i mean that's why it's - >> i think that is consistent with our position. >> yeah. >> any discussion yeah. >> just without recapping the whole thing we've had a pretty good discussion my thought at that time and still is someone apt boat slip from the city has it's a privilege they're seeking and they're in competition with

other people that time boat slips if someone want to challenge whether or not it is appropriate for someone to jump offer others and get boat slip and find out something has been done improper they shouldn't have gotten that is like discovery in litigation even stronger the litigation since the person that didn't have any entitlement to it and the idea that the people who run the marina have this feeling they have to be protective of the rights of pifdz of people they give boat slips to i don't see that them as the guardian angels of the privacy rights

someone wants to found out how much information in a boat slip and times to challenge is it they should have it raw i understand once again you get the slip that information becomes public your address and it is only the wait list when i don't understand if you have a water list it is chronological it is order who's at the tape and second and third and fourth and suddenly 6 comes up getting the slip i don't think you need you've got 6 names and addresses once they get the slip. >> i may not be remembering it correctly. >> i'm sorry. >> because i see and again my name is memory it is not - i esteemed to be remembering there

was some information that appeared to be this is kind germane i could use it to see who my age chiej might be appropriate and all of a sudden the rec and park people sort of come in and is oh no, no wore to protect the privacy rights of those people and we don't want you to get this information and that struck he p me as appropriate maybe i'm over simplifying it maybe i am. >> mr. chair as i recall i remember a discussion that got for specific which was does the weigh lift constitute a contract for the folks on the wait list with the folks who have a contract with

the marina and the name is public and needs to be shared and i'm not sure how what the determination was made internal but we had discussions in which case part of the discussion is - are we liable for giving away private information we really have in contact with those individuals i know there was a hint or at least the possibility of a suggestion this person is going to do something number 6 all of a sudden jumps to non-number one and you've got 4, 3, 2 , 1 and 2 that has no knowledge i suspect anyone that wants to ban together but the fact those folks i'm not sure held a relationship. >> i do your refresh my memory

so that was that was a big part of it yeah. >> do i hear a motion. >> i move to accept the recommendation of staff. >> second. >> second. >> any public discussion. >> yeah. i know hearing none i'll >> i. >> opposed? . >> no. >> motion is kinder 4 to one. >> moving to number 7 discussion and possible action on executive director recruitment process i have reviewed the - well, let me first tell you as you'll

recall following our main be that meeting we extended to june 5th formal additional proposals and we set a 1 o'clock deadline and as of without objection on june 5th no additional ones, however subsequent to that 1 o'clock deadline we did get a second proposal which had a essentially the same scope of work but had a proposal of $48,000 and in view of that i met with alliance and cattle after discussing with them that they

should go ahead and ask the department of human services to do the necessary work to get a contract but in looking at the minutes i didn't see specification going back to june '57 the authorization for either myself or commissioner vice president andrews and myself as the committee to authorize entering into a contract with alliance so at this point, i'll propose that we be give that authorization. >> so moved. >> so moved. >> second. >> any deduction any public comment decision?

hearing none i'll call the question>> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? here we go no nazi hearing none it is carried unanimously and in the course of meeting with alliance i indicated that they did satisfaction that we had and the public seemed to have the scope and description of the executive director position and noted that under their proposal that was the first one they were going to do to draft a profile of the candidates position consideration by the commission or the committee of the commission and they've agreed to do that

i provided orally provided to them suggestions as to who they contacted in the pub in advance of their draft and we have 1086 scheduled a meeting of the subcommittee for the ninth of july at annunciations room 4 for public school input on the draft profile i will be i've not talked to the alliance since my meeting with them i'll be talking with her either tomorrow or the next day and to see where she is on the

drafting and hopefully, we will have a draft for commissioner vice president andrews and i to consider by the end of the week or at tuesday at the certainly the last it needs to go out for public comment if there is push back at that time we will reschedule the july 9th meeting but hopefully, we can go forward timetable we will have the interested public input occupy the 9th make whatever changes or corrections or changed or adding annexes to that profile and go out by the middle of july with a thirty day window for response time and that we will then schedule a

subcommittee meeting to consider the applications that have been received if their voluminous it maybe we'll ask alliance to do some i couldn't have done it without you out but for example only 10 we'll not all of them being brought to us and it will be contemplated we we will then commissioner vice president andrews and i will select out of the number of commitments maybe two or three we consider the top and then bring them to the full commission to consider and to reach a decision as to the hire so that

the records should be clear that the actual determination as to who is going to be hired will be the total commission but that we will cut back to the assistance of the alliance or depending on the number as our proposal. >> commissioner hur. >> that is perfectly responsibly i'll only add you shouldn't be limited to a specific number if you think there are only 2 of the candidates that merit the consideration if i think there are 4 it's fine i'll give you has much as you need to do it appropriately. >> as instructors responded if we have 5 that all look equally

as good we would present them all to you but the likelihood hopefully one or two will stand out. >> any other comments. >> yeah. >> i wanted to say as a point of progress last thursday i had an opportunity to meet with almost everyone on the ethics staff there's an opportunity to hear their thoughts and we spent the better part of if 2 and a half hours dough getting insight full information i'll be pointing out that memo together to get that to commissioner renne to make sure those thoughts and insights are considered as we go to develop the job. >> professional and personal

characteristics for inputs needs to be i daresay we might have some fun it is an enjoyable exam passionate staff thank them for their time. >> thank you. >> let's turn to item 8 discussion and possible action regarding complaints received or initiated by the notification considering improper use of campaign fund one and two failure to report lobbying contacts and is there any public comment on those items if not i'll call for a vote on whether or not we should hold to in

closed session. >> moved and seconded>> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> hearing none we'll go into >> is notification is back in public session and turn and do i need another motion do you hear a most whether or not to disclose or decisions in closed session. >> i recommend we not disclose

any public comment call the question>> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> nancy pelosi's hearing none move to number 9 which is the approval of the minutes of the commission meeting of may 27th and june 5, 2015, any decision? any additions, deletions, or changes hearing none any decision seeing none entertain a motion >> move to approve > all in favor signify by i. > > opposed? >> carried their approved unanimously 10 discussion the executive

director report and related matter and 3 highlights first on budget the board of supervisors budget economy lass list of add backs no additional funding for the ethics commission secondly two candidates have qualified for public financing in district 3 sxhooishgz and other candidate the told her for the mayors race is higher we'll take those candidates morning longer to reach and the last highlight i'll pout the translation of documents into the other languages. >> chair. >> commissioner renne. >> what additional funds did we

ask for . >> an additional staffing of 2 positions and additional investor and more funding for the whole fund. >> is the decision not to approve that for the finance committee was the recommendation of the budget director of harvey rose office. >> heroess office no longer makes recommendations for analysis departments under $10 million he was not part of our process. >> anyone make any recommendations. >> no, no not for the smaller department. >> what did that happen. >> last year was the first or firefighter. >> what's the process of our trying to i mean who do you contact to try to smooth the way

to getting increased funding. >> we talked to the marries budget office a specific analyst that makes the preliminary recommendations i also reach out budget director the supervisor of the staff and came back the members the board of supervisors finance committee and try to bum button hole them there was talk larry supervisor chiu had intentions of perhaps helping how fund advance and do pass, consent obviously he's not ton the board we lost one advocate in that direction and their all sympathetic but when they did the ad back process they are parochial concerns

that's the priority. >> in regards to other departments you saw ink compatible not compatible but were the other departments treated pretty much the stairway someway or get additional money. >> no add backs for the smaller departments. >> the majority of them are for specific projects and the largest departments which is also where the ad back money comes from mr. mr. rose look at those to come out of the budget department. >> their tied to constituents who benefit that is yeah yeah. >> yeah. >> but if our constituencies rue. >> most of these them a fairly specific projects in the add backlist. >> so other 44 thousand is that

what i'm looking for 2015-2016. >> yes. >> where are repudiating those conflict of interests. >> some of it will be absorbed we are trying to adjust salaries for long-term employees that are doing additional work and then we have one vacant position we have fined for outside ever our requests we're looking at and filling but possible with an upgraded responsibility that will require for funding. >> if there's no other questions the last highlight this is my last commission meeting. >> i want to thank the commission for this opportunity to serve it's been a heck of a ride for

11 years and i appreciate all of the commissioners that i'd be able to serve under and the work we've done i think we've made a lot of progress there is still a lot more work to do but i think we've had a lot of improvements in the last 11 years i'm glad i was part of it. >> you don't anticipate being that he august meeting. >> no, but before yourself. >> i have a lot of accumulated leave. >> you're going to be leaving the city. >> yes. going back to massachusetts to be close to any family and all likelihood e back teaching. >> you'll be in the