to make arbitrary decisions relating to it. i think it's important relating to this allegation for us to know was a complaint just dismissed out of hand? and that has nothing to do with the confidentiality of an investigation or anything like that. was it just tossed out? >> again commissioner we treat complaints by the ethics commission by the laws and campaign laws as confidential. in addition to that may i remind you we're currently in public comment. if you want to have discussion about matters under the jurisdiction should be noted and agendized as such. >> commissioners, my name is larry bush. commissioner chair i just want to say first of all that none of the commission's rules anyone that files a complaint is to get ac j want it's received and it's my

understanding ms. hansen has gotten no acknowledgment of the complaint that she filed and it's a simple matter to say whether it's received. it doesn't get into anything more complicate than that. secondly, i am reliably informed by reporters that talked about this issue and talked to mr. st. croix there is no violation here and just send it on its way. as you know when you recreate the campaign -- recreate the law this year you dropped the provision of those that spend $5,000 or more on a third party disclosure no longer have to file with the ethics commission. ind instead the commission was to under take a review of the record and see if that money was spent. but in the event there is no report filed you have nothing to review and you have a catch 22. there is no report so

we didn't review a report. i think that is something that obviously needs to be addressed. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i'm the founder and director of neighbors visiting a viz dareo and i think bringing the biggest ethics concern in the city and we want you to address violations mayor lee of the campaign violations and in debt after the 2011 mayor's race. since he is seeking reelection we want this addressed to the public before voters receive the ballots. the public learned in recorded conversations from a human rights commissioner and staff member told an under cover fbi businessman and to use this

by using straw donors. ed knows you gave $10,000 and you will give another $10,000 and we had to break it up said in a 2012 recording. lee met with the same under cover agent at a human rights commissioner's nasally ho hodger's office and raised $10,000 to assist in retiring campaign debt. he met with the agent and discussed breaking up an additional $10,000 contribution. when the agent asked about going into smaller increments and he said "we have no problem with this but you can't talk to this about anyone." he was brought up with campaign issues violations with the commis hosting a matter and we

see that ed lee basically out spent john avalos who the closest contender four to one and still went over the budget by nearly $300,000 and one of the main responsibilities of a mayor of the city and county of san francisco is to stay within the budget, and so it's alarming to me that he didn't stay within his means because i was raised to stay and live within my means so since he was out spending four to one why go over budget an extra $300,000 and that makes sense why he is scrambling about his underlings afterwards how we're going to pay off the debt in increments? $300,000 to retire after he had already won the election. people contributed millions of dollars in $500 increments and had to figure out a way to retire it so what are you going to do before

the election to put our minds at ease about this matter? please let us know. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i'm here to speak about the district 3 third party spending complaint that is before this commission. my name is ms. berry and i have lived in the district for 15 years and the election this november is by far one of the most heated in a rather dull campaign year -- at least that's what the newspapers tell us. this campaign is of utmost importance and follow up and investigate the complaint before you and knowing what third party spending is are canning it's critical to us and we have a savvy city. we pay attention and read and investigate so we're here before you to ask you in your wisdom to investigate the issue of the san francisco alliance for jobs and sustainable growth pack because the complaint alleges there is

third party spending to influence the race with one supervisor and not the other and that is supervisor christensen there is a statement filed by the alliance that they paid 13,500 to advisers for campaign consulting service. however according to the ethics commission website it's not registered to provide consulting services to san francisco alliance it's not a registered campaign consultant at all. the advisers are providing field organizers and knocks on behalf of one supervisor in the race, supervisor christensen and not the other. this is very troubling. we're asking you to act on this complaint. none of this information has been disclosed as part of the race. that's the issue: municiple transportation agency, disclosure and make sure that the.

>> >> transparency and disclosure and please take action on the complaint before you. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is shannon bolt and owner operator of a dog walking business in the city i am 30 and a long time san francisco resident and i wanted to echo amy's concerns about mayor lee's campaign finance allegations against him and the potential ethics breaches in that case especially with the upcoming mayoral election it's important that they're investigated so they're lead to fall on deaf ears. thank you very much for your consideration. >> i am oliver chalker and lived in san francisco the last couple of years. this is the first time i am voting in a

local election and i want to copy amy's statements on the allegations regarding ed lee as someone who is just stepping into san francisco politics i feel like this has in a lot of ways taintdd and i have a lot of questions and i would like very much for you to respond to all of this. thank you very much. >> david pilpel speak as a individual and i wanted to respond to the comments in the chronicle a few weeks ago with the allegations about ed lee from the matter. i was concerned that those remarks appeared to confirm the receipt of a complaint and/or investigation on that matter and also suggested to me possible -- that commissioner keane had already come to a conclusion

that there was probable cause finding. that's how i read it. i am sure others could read it differently. i wanted to express that concern they think as deputy city attorney shin advised you earlier that complaints are confidential under the charter and although commissioners can speak to reporters and get quoted in the paper and talk about the general practice of how complaints are received and reviewed that one probably shouldn't comment on a specific complaint or specific facts so i'm not filing a complaint or concern beyond this but i wanted to state that so i had those concerns. thank you very much. >> any other -- >> may i respond mr. chair? >> in a minute. if you look at the commission's bylaws there is a paragraph that reads as follows. "the commission shall

urge the public in the strongest possible terms not to make complaints at public meetings since the public disclosure of such complaints undermine any subsequent investigation under taken by the commission." now, as i think all of you know if you have a complaint it is to be filed with the staff, and dealt with in a confidential manner, and i don't know -- there have been some references to complaints that have been filed and have been dismissed. i don't know anything about it, but the proper procedure is not in an open forum to discuss it because of the fact that if in fookt there is an ongoing investigation you could well prejudice by the remarks that are made when the time comes when enforcement actions are taken, but i appreciate the comments and we will certainly

follow up on some of the issues you raised, but i don't think at the moment they were not on the agenda and we're aren't in a position to deal with them as agenda items. all right. commissioner keane. >> thank you mr. chair. in regard to the statement by mr. pilpel relating to the -- my comment to moe green of the "san francisco chronicle" and her having -- put it in the story. who i said was a little -- what i said was a little regurgitation of what executive director john st. croix said in a letter he wrote to the member of the public and the member of the public disseminated widely

to other members of the public in an email. one of the people who it was disseminated to was mr. larry bush, and i then got that email along with other members of the public of what mr. st. croix had said about that particular complaint. mr. st. croix had spoken on behalf of the commission, made a comment relating to it, and i simply regurgitated what those comments were literally. i sent an email to you mr. chair referencing mr. st. croix's letter and also mr. bush's email where he had set out what mr. st. croix has said, so it wasn't a personal comment of mine in any way relating to the complaint. it was simply a statement of what had been said

by our executive director, presumably on behalf of the commission and everyone else, to the public; therefore revealing what was said in these comments, and i simply regurgitated that to ms. green when she asked the question about the particular issue involved. i did not reveal any confidential information. it was not confidential. mr. st. croix had already widely disseminated it to the public and by his doing that in terms of the remarks that we're talking about it was not confidential, and therefore there was no improprietiy on my behalf. >> very many. we will turn to -- very well. we will turn to item 3 on the jernldz and position action on commission activities regarding the

expenditure lobbyist ballot measure. i don't think there is action we will talk about but i wanted to bring my fellow commissioners up-to-date on what has occurred in connection with the expenditure lobbyist ballot measure since the last meeting and i think distributed to the public was the ballot statement which was prepared on behalf of the commission, the opposition that was prepared by a single individual who took issue with what he deemed to be exemptions, but not really the substance of the ballot measure, our response to the argument agency and there have been since that time --

there was also a ballot simplification meeting with the ballot simplification commission which -- committee which did a great job of doing some i think clear laying out what the ballot measure seeks to accomplish. mr. manardy and i have attended a fairly large number of various club meetings, and for those of you who have not been in the political process, san francisco has numerous political clubs that meet and they hold what are called "endorsement sessions" and we received invitations to those sessions, and we appear,

and our role is very constrained because of the advice from the city attorney's office that we cannot advocate. we can talk only objectively, and talk about the facts, and therefore and the invitation always say "we want a speaker on behalf of the -- in favor of the proposal and any speakers against it" , and i always have to tell them when i stand up we're here in a totally different role. we're not here as advocating to vote for or against, but here's what it's all about. generally they're quite accepting of that limited role, and i've got to say that friends of ethics, particularly mr. bush who has been attending

many of the meetings, and i think playing the role of an advocate for the ordinance, and explaining some of the questions and answering some of the questions that they may have about some of the misstatements that are out there in the public. but one of the problems is many of the clubs limit it to one speaker so that if mr. mar nardy agreed to go mr. bush or anybody who is an advocate for it isn't allowed to speak, and i will tell you that we have generally been fairly successful. the great overwhelming majority of the organizations have voted in

favor of supporting what is proposition c, and i believe that one that i appeared at last saturday voted no, and i will -- i don't know what the reasons were. i was the only one that appeared on behalf of it but there was hostility in the club to the ethics commission and questions "why should we trust you? because you don't do anything" so it was a little hard to stay factually objective in response to some of the questions, but in any case we expect the invitations will continue through the month of september, and we will try to appear at as many as we can,

and urge those who are in favor of proposition c or who are opposed to it to appear and express the views as advocates for whatever the point maybe. anybody have any questions or comments that you want to -- >> i wanted to -- mr. chair, i wanted to get some clarity on the back page because i have a feeling that there will be over the coming months a growing amounts of advocacy on both sides and i am looking on this back page and says "can the prop posal be amended or changed at a later date" and does that mean a later date after the ordinance is passed? it has to pass. from this point it moves forward and has to pass and all of the bullet points are in play?

okay. thank you. >> i will say chair thank you for your efforts and attending the meetings. i think it's good for the public to seat commission participating. >> yeah, i would like to second that. >> well, it's typical this saturday there's three of them. two between 1130 and 12 something and another one that has been the time but somewhere around 130 or so. we did turn down a -- one for sunday because neither of us were available but i'm happy to say that club endorsed proposition c without our appearance, but i think maybe mr. bush may have been there and been helpful. all

right. public comment. >> just a few points mr. chair. i know the club that voted no on saturday and jesus couldn't have delivered that club. it was opposed deeply by some members of the committee who had been given i think misleading information . i wonder at this point whether or not you might want to do an update on the frequently asked questions page because a number of issues have been coming up repeated atly at the endorsement meetings. for example the question what constitutes a member of an organization? because there is an exemption for contacting members when you're doing things. the response on that is a little unclear in the law, and it would be good to have view of that. also it's helpful when i talk to clubs to point out that the

groups that have been most concerned about this, the non-profit organizations and the unions, already register, lobby as direct lobbyists and i have been handing out a list of those that do that and point out those exist in other cities. i want to bring to your attention a part of the lobby law that has been overlooked by many people but is relevant to this case and prop e which is the measure about public notices and that say requirement that says when you testify before a body on behalf of a client you're to identify who the client is when testifying. here is a copy of the law and reference to the prop e thing. i think it's good if you commission sends to the boards and commissions and the board of supervisors a reminder that people speaking as public advocates need to identify who

they're speaking for. under prop e it would eliminate this part of the lobby law because it says all of the testimony should be confidential in which no record is kept of the points of view or the people who speak, so there's perhaps an unintended consequence of invalidating some of the important public disclosures that we have in the lobby law. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm robert james [inaudible] swai. i think you need to update the faqs a bit. what is handed out has two pages. there is a three page document that ties off your agenda. i think the second page is missing from the handout. and there was a section in

there that asked "did the city previously regulate expenditure lobbying ?" with bullets under that. i think that should be expanded a little bit to make it clear that non-profits and unions were subject to the prior law up until 2009, and i think where you talk about the process under which it was adopted you should mention it was brought up at more than one meeting. you did discuss it in a couple of meetings. you had an interested persons meeting as well, and just kind of put that in the faq because some people are making allegations about late night secret meeting where this was adopted which doesn't fit with any reality i'm aware of so thank you. >> any further comments?

turning to agenda item number 4. discussion and possible action regarding staff's proposal to issue warning letter instead of pursuing fines for violations of disclaimer requirements for campaign-related communications. mr. manardy do you want to expand on that? >> sure director, commission. this is a very simple request having to do with two sort of areas of rule that's commission is dealing with that are certainly -- currently under a bit of a transition. the first has to do with -- the first sort of set of rules has to do with the disclaimer of laws which just changed. the commission approved it back in january and effective at the end of july, and the disclaimer laws are i believe improved. they have

for additional information like somebody has to refer people to the website, the ethics commission website on the paid for by line so paid for by committee x. go to the ethics commission website for more information. so that has just changed and based on a lot of the calls coming in people are trying their best it appears to comply. they're a little confused. i have been pretty happy with how we're advising them, but what we anticipate we anticipate that there will likely be a few mistakes and disclaimers that are not complete based on this transition period, so what the commission has is the commission adopted back two years ago another set of rules which are policies which provide for fixed fines for certain violations of our campaign laws, and you all

may remember this, but like i would say six to nine months ago we had this rash of disclaimer violation cases where there were disclaimers in 13 point font instead of 14 point font but by virtue of the policies we had to go go ahead and impose the fines so those policies have to be updated because the disclaimer rules and other things changed some of the applicable code sections but pending that update we think it's reasonable for staff in certain instances to sort of exercise discretion to present the commission with where there is a violation with a proposed warning letter as opposed to necessarily a fine, be given the transition and what we understand are a lot of questions on these matters.

now, again all it would be is a prop posal so the commission would of course retain the authority to say no we think that a fine should be imposed, that sort of thing, but we're thinking of instances where for example it's a new campaign. there is no history of any sort of violations. there is no intent and they say forgot to include the reference to the website, but all of the paid for by information was included. the address was included and it was an oversight given that we're sort of having these new rules so in an instance like that we say it might be reasonable to say look no history, no intent. most of the information is there, the important information is there. we're going to suggest that the commission close this with a warning letter. don't do it again. if you do it again we will issue a fine as opposed to going to this automatic

procedure where you automatically have to pay. i mean the past fines are minimum 500 and the policy calls for a thousand dollars for those fines. you know there would be cases where we would say we should still impose those fines automatically and i think staff would propose that. for instance if there is a mass mailer and subject to disclaimer laws forever and there is no disclaimer on it that is not a warning letter because it's a very common thing in the law for a long time, but things like the font size is off. maybe the reference to the website is not there, no history. we think allowing us to propose a warning letter settlement we think is a wise thing, and again this would be subject ultimately to your approval to the extent you thought the facts didn't merit it you could reject it and we

could go back and seek a fine. >> [inaudible] >> you say that you have to update the policies. the policies are not on the website or on other material? >> they are on the website. >> updates policies? >>not the updated policies but there's a couple of notes -- there are a couple of things that need to be updated too. and our regulations and policies and there is a note on it that says "there have been changes to the campaign law. that these policies and regs have to be updated. with any questions please contact staff immediately if you have any questions how these apply". >> and how long do you think it's going to take to update the policies on materials and the website? >> it would take commission action so the staff couldn't do that so we have to prepare the

new policies and regulations. the policies couldn't be a huge overhaul but it would certainly be some work. the regulations will take a bit longer so we certainly need a few months to do that. >> well, given that i really support what you're saying because from what i've seen often it is newcomers to the electoral process and the political process that make the mistakes, don't know what they're doing, and suffer these fines which often i think we have seen don't really have the money to pay for it so i think a warning letter is appropriate in those cases. obviously with the people that you know are fully conversant with all of the regs and all of the policies that's a different situation, but i support your prop posal. >> and by way of clarification one thing although the

regulations haven't been up dated -- staff prepared this and i will mention it as part of the ed report a lot of guidance through the interested persons list including charts that layout exactly where the disclaimers should be. hopefully -- we hope in an easy to use fashion but again they're confusing rules so certainly people make mistakes. >> that seems perfectly reasonable to me. >> yeah, i would agree also. it's good guided discretion because some of the fines, $500 for these rather diminutive font violations and i am comforted by the fact that the last line of the staff recommendations, which of course would follow through that, the commission would retain the authority to reject the proposal warning letter in any matter and direct staff to pursue the appropriate fines so

we're not giving up anything here. we're just widening the area of discretion and seems very reasonable. >> so as you contemplated if we approve this that in a case where you're going to send a warning letter rather than imposing a fine that you will advise the commission that's how you intend to dispose of it before you send out the warning letter? >> that's correct. yeah, definitely. >> commissioner andrews. >> how many warning letters do we send out in a year? what other violations do we allow this kind of warning letter enforcement? >> you know i couldn't comment on the numbers but it can be -- i mean warning letters whether from our organization or others are generally sent out where there is a violation -- usually a technical violation and the

estimation by the staff and if a approved by the commission and the commission as well that the public harm was limited and that there was limited amount culpablity and taking those factors into consideration the idea is people make mistakes. if it's not a big mistake, there's not a lot of public harm we're telling you don't do it again, so it could be on any of the matters within the jurisdiction, so i can't think of one right off hand. >> that's fine. there is another approach obviously. we could comtemplate the reduction of the fine and say for that classification of violation it's $50 and not 500. >> that's true. >> that is -- you know put someone on notice that they're

culpable and responsible and to right the wrong they have to put some skin in the game and complicit with a warning letter. >> i think that's right. i think -- i wasn't here but my understanding is that these policies were designed to sort of speed things along a little bit. i'm not sure they ultimately -- i'm not sure that was necessarily the outcome, but certainly sort of a traffic ticket approach is something that the fbc does and i think would be in this commission's interest to look into, certainly something i was thinking about, but that is another issue, but -- >> do i hear a motion? >> i will move to approve the proposal relating to the warning letters. >> second. >> i call for public comment.

>> good afternoon. robert james [inaudible] sway again but attached to the staff memo rts policies you adopted before and when i read this section dealing with the written disclaimers and i think this is a good idea, i can't really map it into what is in the policy right now. there's sort of a sequence of events where there is initial preliminary review. there is a 14 day deadline where things might come to a commission after that. would they come to the commission with a recommendation for a warning letter? you know i think you need some clarity about how it maps on to the policy, and then it's probably good to go. thank you. >> certainly. well, i think most of the timelines have to do with notifying the committee as to we think you had a violation

of your disclaimer rule, and have 14 days to get back all during the preliminary review phase of it complaint. the thing is that with the disclaimer there's -- you know, it's sort of there so it's very unlikely they're -- unless they show that the disclaimer somehow -- the copy you have doesn't have the right font size which is unusual. usually it is what it is but even under this that says if you don't respond in 14 days we will open a formal complaint process and then it goes through the same process that we would have with our normal complaints so what we would do -- again we would -- to the extent we thought there were mitigating circumstances. it wasn't that big of a deal, whatever it is, that is smen subject to folks to a move at a regularly scheduled meeting. >> david pilpel again speaking

as an individual. i support the proposal and i wanted to clarify two points. when a proposed warning letter is brought to the commission i just wanted to be sure one way or the of the is it for a vote to approve the warning letter or would it go absent a vote to disapprove so i am trying to figure out where the three votes would be? maybe staff can clarify and my other concern is just to make sure this gets in the project calendar or work plan so that at some point along with the long list of other things that's going to happen it's cataloged as a thing to update. thank you. >> any other comments? all right. i will call the question. all in favor say aye? >> aye. >> opposed? motion is carried unanimously and the staff

recommendation adopted. turning to item five discussion and possible action regarding the commission's efforts to hire a new executive director. again i don't think we'r asking for any action here but again i wanted to bring the commissioners up-to-date on the recruiting process to date. the recruiting firm has advised us and sent us resumes for nine applications -- applicants. they tell us there have been 14 as of yesterday. they're sending further letters out to some of their contacts to see whether it engenders additional applicants, but our intention is that will continue

through september 11 at which time the application process will be completed, and commissioner andrews and i will be meeting to review and discuss the applications that have come in, and to see whether or not we think that there are candidates who are appropriate for the position, and present them whether it's two, three, four to the commission for its consideration and decision as to the hire. if we are not satisfied with the quality of the responses we may ask the recruiting firm to open the recruiting for a longer period of time to see whether we can engender stronger candidates.

i would say overall looking at the nine that i have looked at i'm not overwhelmed, and maybe a little disappointed at this stage, but the recruiting firm says it's very common for the major amount of the applicants coming in towards the end of the period so we will see. >> chair hur. >> yes. >> just. >> chair rene. >> yes. just a couple of questions and you commissioner andrews will look at it and whittle it down. there is no magic number and there is a clear delineation after three or seven that's what you will present and any discussion to reopen or continue the application process will be made by the commission. is that right?

>> i think to continue it i think unless you tell me otherwise i think that commissioner andrews and i as the committee assigned for the recruiting process would have the authority to tell the recruiter to send out notices that the recruiting deadline has been extended to another time period. >> and that would be because you didn't think there was even one candidate that would qualify? >> right. i don't know if i would say one but there were not i would hope that two or three we feel would at least qualify. now, i have to tell you that the -- we're in the process of preparing what i will call "core questions" which will be the questions that will be asked of every candidate when we have

personal interviews with them, whether those interviews are face-to-face or whether we do them by skype or some other teleconferencing, but i think in fairness to the candidates we're going to have a group of core questions that every candidate will get asked that we can sort of test them all against a standard, but then we'll question beyond those that might be subjects that open up because of the responses to the core questions. >> when will the questioning of potential candidates occur? >> assuming that we close it on september 11 commissioner andrews and i will have to agree on some time when we can conduct these interviews. i would hope it would be some time in the month of september. >> so the idea being that you would conduct the interviews and

eventually whether that's september or october the commission would have candidates. do we have a chance to meet the candidates in open session? >> not in open session. >> in any session, closed session, i'm sorry. >> closed session but it's only the ones that we whittled down to that we would recommend be considered. in other words, we will go through the nine or 14 or 20 as it maybe. i think some will whittle out without face-to-face meetings, but and i think hoping to have it done by the end of september is probably overly optimistic so the target date should be our meeting in october. >> that would be when the commission has an opportunity to meet the candidates? >> right. or we might schedule a special meeting for that

purpose but i would like to get a final decision made by the end of october. >> okay. i have i think we do need a little clarity though on what the basis is going to be for continuing the process? in other words, you know i -- you know, i think as you guys know i have some concern. i do think we want to be efficient and try to get a person in place as soon as reasonable and if there are no good candidates i can understand the need to keep the process open but i would like more clarity as to what that threshold is? in other words, if you look at all the candidates and don't think there is one that would merit being the executive director then i can understand that but which is the number that all right we need to keep the process open because there aren't enough good candidates? >> well, i don't think there is a magic number -- as i of

through this process quite often on both sides there is no magic number but generally speaking the minimum would be two. the max would be the max. three is always great. but i would say to just bring one candidate forward is not worth it, and that for me be the automatic trigger to extending the process and then looking at the strategies of outreach that we would be doing to be more targeted in our strategies of out reach and even looking at some of the what we're offering in terms of salary and benefits and i know there's not a lot of wiggle room with that but how much of it is a consideration or not in people that riewld themselves out or insofar but at minimum two and three i

personally would feel great if there were three or more, but certainly i don't know how the commission feels about it but not one. >> would there be a down side? if there are two and i agree with you it sounds like the minimum should be two but if there are two is there a down side to bringing two to the commission and if neither is deemed satisfy to reopen rather than deciding i want -- you two deciding i want four. >> i don't think there is a down side because of the process. we have structure in place; right? we have an interim executive director. different situations call for different strategies. in this one we designed it that time is on our side. it may not be optimal for staff and such as we move forward but the fact is we have built this temporary strategy and structure to be in place so that it can support us so that

we have the time, so if it came that two candidates came forward and through the interviewing process we recognizing these aren't the right candidates we would have the opportunity to do that, and the commission as the staff would continue to move forward, so i think the staffing and the structure is all in place for us to have any of those options in front of us, and we could exercise them at any time. >> thank you. >> any public comment? (off mic). >> thank you. larry bush commissioners. just a few quick comments. at what point if at all are you going to be disclosing the names of the candidates or is it all going to be confidential? >> i believe that all of them will be confidential because all of them are holding their jobs

-- other jobs -- >> that's what i would expect but i didn't want to put that on the record. >> fact they applied for another job and run successful -- so i think the only public information will be the successful candidate. >> secondly, the core questions that you're talking about will you circulate those among the other commissioners or is it just going to be you and commissioner andrews? >> i would i would anticipate they would be circulated to the other commissioners, and -- although i hadn't -- i had given some thought to it. they maybe circulated for public comment. >> i don't know. i always appreciate transparency but i was thinking we might just

solicit from the public the questions they think should be asked and whether or not you decide to release the questions being asked is a personnel decision for the commission. i know in terms of the number of people that go forward when i worked at -- in the federal government you always had three candidates who went forward, and i sat in and i was involved in hiring the heads of the offices throughout four states in different cities, and it's important to have a robust group of candidates to look at because they bring different skills and at different times. it's not a cookie cutter thing. at different times there is a different agenda and commissioners have another so it's good to have some variation. the only other point i wanted to make is to bring to your attention a factor in the

new executive director that hasn't been true in the recent, and that is that under the city charter the ethics commission is required to have an executive secretary and that's found in section 4102, section number nine says -- "shall appoint an executive secretary to manage the affairs and operations of the boards and commissions" and that is true for every commission. there is no exception for the ethics commission. i know you have resisted having an executive secretary for the commission, but i think as you look forward to a new position you need to keep in mind that's a factor. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i want to thank you for the hard work you have been doing on the campaign trail. i know it's

exhaustive and exhausting. i do want to also -- i know this process that the appointment of the executive director is not something where we really have to reinvent the wheel. there is plenty of technical assistance available to you and i assume your staff i think for the public that's watching this broadcast they would be interested in knowing how your sub-committee works a little bit, whether you have a staff or assistance, or perhaps interface with the civil service commission i would assume or some of the technical people there, so that you can get all the help that you need, and this is not coming off of the brow [inaudible] >> [inaudible] human resources provides whatever support we need whenever we asked for it and they have been very

cooperative. >> great. >> and the recruiting firm is -- >> the firm itself. >> right. >> so you have both the city and outside consultant helping? >> right. >> very good. >> david pilpel again speaking as an individual. just two comments here. i wanted to appreciate the continued discussion in public and transparency about the hiring process. in particular chair your admission there are nine candidates so far if i understood that correctly. i think to the extend you can -- extent you can provide information as the process goes on so the total number of candidates you received, how many were screened by the sub-committee? how many were presented to the commission? and ultimately who was selected? i think that is helpful so we get a sense of what happened. i am not interested in knowing

the names until you actually select director so that all works and just to comment on mr. bush's comment i believe the charter provision about a charter secretary is subject to the other parts of the charter and the budget for the commission doesn't have a position allocated for secretary. in the event you had one then the commission would oversee and hire that person as well but it's my understanding that you don't currently. thank you. >> all right. unless any of the commissioners have a question we will turn to item number 6 discussion and possible action regarding complaints and a list of complaints are contained in that agenda item, and we will first i guess i will --

does anybody have a motion as to whether or not we should go into closed session to discuss those items in the agenda, item 6? do i hear a motion to have us consider those in closed session? >> can someone remind me of the legal basis for going into closed session for something like this? >> sure commission hur. it's spelled out on the second page of the agenda itself under

subb. very top of the page. >> so this is an action where we are determining whether -- regarding possible actions regarding complaints received or initiated by the ethics commission and the basis is the attorney-client privilege? is that right? >> yes. that is correct. as you're familiar this is the citation we use for all closed session discussions enforcement matters and during this time members of my office are present. i am not present since i advise the staff. we maintain due process and the city attorney josh wrightwood would advise the commission but

tonight john gibner is here advising the staff. >> all right. >> do i hear a motion? >> [inaudible] >> maybe i can ask a clarifying question, so the city attorney is the attorney obviously. who is the client? >> i'm sorry? >> who is the client? >> our client is the city and county of san francisco including one of its agencies, the ethics commission. >> so the commission in this instance, the commission is the client. the city attorney is the attorney? >> correct. >> and to the extent we are seeking legal advice -- >> in connection with pending enforcement matters. >> in connection with pending enforcement matters. okay and isn't there a local regulation

that we rely upon for keeping these enforcement matters in closed session? >> yeah, the charter section as well is one thing that we do rely on. the charter section c .369 9- 13. >> right. that's what is cited here, and remind me again that charter section requires -- >> yeah, i can pull up the language pretty quickly. so yeah sub a of that section it provides for the investigation shall be conducted in a confidential manner. records of any investigation shall be confidential information as to permitted by state law. the unauthorized release of confidential information is subject to termination of any employee or commissioner responses for any such release and this is from our charter.

>> i will move that we meet in closed session. >> could i just ask a question before we take up the motion? i'm not going to oppose. in regard to the charter section that you just talked about relating to the need to keep confidential the investigation of any kind of complaints. as i understand it and looking at the materials themselves are to trigger tonight a probable cause hearing. is that fair? i mean if we go forward we would be going forward with what would be in effect a probable cause hearing, like a preliminary hearing in a criminal case before a case is held to trial. isn't that -- >> right. i don't want to go into too much detail --

>> i'm not going into detail. i am talking about procedure. you're always telling me i am saying too much. i'm talking about procedure but not investigation but the procedure you layout in agenda item 6, and i'm not opposing the closed session. i want to ask a question of you as our attorney as to whether or not -- first of all do you agree that if we go forward on agenda item 6 we would be going forward with what would be some form of probable cause hearing? >> as the agenda describes if there are three enforcement matters that the commission is considering for the night some of them involve probable cause and some do not. >> okay. so in regard to -- i'm trying to analogize this probable cause hearings in other situations like in the criminal system. you had the investigation. the investigation is being done here by the staff and the criminal

system is done by the police or whoever and the material is assembled and all of it maybe confidential whether it's a grand jury or here in terms of a investigation it's all confidential. thousand then you get to a point we will have a hearing to determine probable cause, and if we again analogize that to probable cause hearings in the criminal system at that point it's an open hearing; right? if we have a preliminary -- >> i will defer to you on that. you have more experience that i. >> if you do that it's an open hearing and whatever that maybe confidential up to then, grand jury matters and everything they start coming out. why would a probable cause hearing -- i'm not arguing that it isn't, but why is a probable cause hearing

in our proceedings something that must be confidential? >> i think that was a policy decision made by the voters and whoever drafted the charter amendment establishing the processes. >> even though the language talks about an investigation, an investigation. it doesn't talk about any hearings that we conduct. the language you gave us talked about confidential investigations. now, we're in regard to a hearing. why would a hearing have to be confidential? >> right. >> do you. me to jump in? >> [inaudible] >> >> jessie manarde executive director. the direct answer is that the relations provide it to are confidential. >> tell me the language. >> the hearing shall be closed to public by state law unless

the respondent request that. >> that's all i am looking for. thank you very much. >> simply a policy decision made long ago. >> could have taken that with the one sentence language that was just given to us. >> do we have a second. >> i second. >> public comment? >> larry bush. without disclosing any of the specifics is it -- in the commission's view possible to disclose whether any of these cases involve candidates or committees involved in the november 2015 election or is this going to be one of the thing where we look back they acted today but it's on things that happened in 2011 or 2012? it's good to disclose now whether what you're taking up is on committees or candidates on the ballot in november. is there any reason that's not included?

>> i would advise that the commission not disclose that information of. as the council aware there are limited offices and up for competitive election. >> it's not a limited number. your boss is up for election in november as is the sheriff as is the district attorney as is the mayor as is one supervisor as a number of people on school board and community college board. they're probably 15 people on the ballot so i don't think you can make that statement and be accurate. >> any other comments? >> yes. taking mr. shin's opinion about what constitutes a disclosure i would like to know why the city attorney and the commission didn't sanction mr. st. croix for sending out a letter in april describing the status of an investigation?

that letter went out and the case was referred to the city attorney and the district attorney and sent out publicly. under your advise just now mr. shin that should be a violation of the city law. i heard no action by you or by this commission taking mr. st. croix to account for that. >> the city attorney can correct me. my understanding is that we are -- that the staff is obligated to advise complainant what action if any is taken in connection with a complaint filed. >> that is correct. >> you understand that the letter being referred to is a letter in which mr. st. croix told the complainant what had been done with his complaint. >> i understand, but in that case why didn't eileen hansen get a letter when she filed a complaint and it's been two

weeks and no notification that the commission accepted it. >> i can't respond to it because i don't know. >> i'm not putting you in the witness box. there is a question here and pending at staff for two weeks. it doesn't take two weeks to send a letter saying we accepted the complaint or rejected it. nothing. not even an acknowledgment about it. is it lost in the mail? thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i am charlie mars stellar for the record. i thank you for all being here tonight and this is an excellent opportunity and discussion to raise a little bit of prehistoric history. i have been attending meetings of the commission very robustly early on starting in about 97. that

would include probably many hundreds of meetings of all types but i do want to say that in the early days when this commission was born you had hardly any staff, and you were just feeling your way scprkts city attorney was taking conservative views and was understanding given resourcing and things because you were just babes in arms, and they ruled very conservatively on your processes and procedures, particularly the ones pertaining to enforcement and adjudication of enforcementses or complaints to the commission, so there maybe now an excellent opportunity with three attorneys on the panel and perhaps more,

and then some excellent staff who are also attorneys to look at some of these issues you have seen come up, particularly mr. hearsest since he been here long and has gray hair now -- maybe not, maybe a few, but there is a lot of expertise in the room so you might want to revisit some of your processes as you have really interpreted them the most conservative ways, and in some ways throughout your history this is come into conflict with the public's needs and right to know and i think at some point some of your processes on adjudication need to be loosened up a little bit, but you started off very conservatively. that was back when i think deputy city attorney julie ma was here and that was -- you're just feeling your way. >> thank you.

>> david pilpel again speaking as an individual. at first i thought this discussion was sort of superfluous and not at all and it's enlightening about the basis for the closed session. i am remembering that the regulations provide for part of the process to be in closed session and once there's a finding of probable cause for the hearing on the merits to be public, and i think those regulations were drafted by deputy city attorney ma or previous deputy city attorneys and there were policy considerations about that and maybe it's time to revisit that but on balance i am satisfied both under the brown act and sunshine ordinance you're in a

good place and how the charter section affects these and i support the motion. thank you. >> thank you. all right. i will call the question. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? we will go into closed session. >> mr. chair if i could say one thing for the first matter i have been fire falled off so i'm going to leave for the first matter and i will come back for >> all right. we're back in open session and i will turn to section e of item number 6 for discussion and vote pursuant to the brown act and the sunshine ordinance whether to disclose any action taken or discussion taken in closed session regarding the pending

litigation. >> move that we don't disclose. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? >> david pilpel. it's not public comment but i am wondering if there is announcement of action taken in closed session? i'm not asking about action and discussion. >> i'm not sure i understood what you said. >> i support the motion not to disclose but i am wonding if there is any action that you need to report out? okay. that's all. >> call the question. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? it carries unanimously. we will turn to item number 7, discussion and possible action on the june's29 and 27 draft minutes. any corrections or additions by the

commission? any corrections or additions by the public? >> david pilpel speaking as an individual. since we had a lot of time and while you were in closed session there were a number of typos and things that would read better. i won't go through them and i will give them to staff and give them discretion to improve them. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> motion to approve the minutes as possibly revised with minor corrections? >> i move that we approve the minutes subject to typographical and other drafting errors by staff. >> second? >> [inaudible] >> all right. call the question. all in favor say aye? >> aye.

>> opposed? minutes will be approved as amended. item number 8 is a discussion of the acting executive director's report. >> yes commissioners i would just call your attention to two items. one is on page two which talks about under campaign finance disclosure programmure our new rules went into effect as i mentioned before so we have been doing a lot of outreach. we issued two new forms, two fact sheets summarizing the changes and five charts based on the f dc charts about the disclosure requirements and help people comply with the new rules and the final thing i point out is on the second to last page about the statement -- outreach

and education. we just met the other day with union members in connection with the electronic filing of form 700 issue, so there continue to be concerns that the unions have regarding both the people who are required to file in the first place, and then folks who are -- and then just getting it up posted electronically, so we did meet and discuss per the advice of the city and dhr. we're now at the point right now it is not possible to implement this by the april 1 deadline given a number of things that have to happen, so we are going to have to shoot for the following year, and we have a couple -- we've had discussions with the unions in terms of them culling through the list to make them more

appropriate so that for instance receptionists don't have to file form 700 and in one case they did, but also talking to them during that process about the actual electronic posting itself, and they have some suggestions. i'm not sure how possible they are but we will maintain that avenue open as well. otherwise it's as submitted. >> any questions or discussions? >> mr. chair. >> yes. >> i just wanted to talk about the budget. >> sure. >> since we just approved the -- the city approved a two year budget, and in relation to they wanted to talk about this commission secretary that came up earlier in the meeting which is mandatory but only in relation to budget considerations of the city, so

under budget and staffing we were talking about the reduction of -- some reductions we had. there was a three reduction in fringe benefit costs and services from other departments. i just wanted to hear more about how and why those reductions happened. >> the honest truth with respect to those smaller percentage reductions i don't know the specifics. i can certainly get back to you. the big reduction, the 22% reduction is really a reflection of the fact we got this one time funding last year that's not there. my understanding is that the staff funding increase is a cola increase for ongoing staff but they anticipate next year basically adding another position. that would be an enforcement position, so it's like anything else. i mean obviously it would be great to

have a commission secretary who could prepare all these wonderful materials for you. certainly it's like anything else in terms of priorities and that sort of thing to make that determination. >> what kind of -- i guess for sake of a better word "politicking" is done over the years to try to get the mayor to be more sympathetic to our needs? i mean do you know? was jack meeting with the mayor and his staff over time and trying to convince them that we do have needs if we're going to be an effective body? or is it just something that we hand in what we want, and the mayor does what he wants? >> so my experience is that most of the communications are

done through our budget analyst with the mayor, right, in the year that i have been here, a year and a half and the extra asks are generally in -- the position for the mayor's office has been -- well, i think to answer your question i don't think jack was going to the mayor directly. there was some back and forth with the mayor's office and the budget in terms of pushing -- there's a lot of push back and ultimately there were some appeals made to particular members of the board of supervisors in the year and a half i have been here that's what i have seen, so -- >> i would just have to say they would look for the new executive director to be more of an advocate around some of these open positions for just that reason. we're going to -- this is a very administratively

heavy commission, lots of -- just looking at that timeline and projects that we have on board, and if someone's time is being taken up with pulling reports and minutes together that a secretary in which we would just be more in line with almost every other commission i can't imagine i wouldn't put that as part of my recommendation for 16-17. i would somehow find a way to get that in there. enforcement is obviously important and investigators and auditors are important, but in the last two -- up to two years that i played in this particular arena i see the benefit of having a secretary. >> i agree totally with what

at this time commissioner said and in terms of lobbying for the budget of the commission and mr. st. croix and my grilling of him several times he did little if anything, and i speak as someone who for 20 years was chief assistant of a city department, and was the person who was in charge of getting the budget and dealing with the mayor's office and dealing with the board of supervisors, and for any agency you have to -- it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. you need to go constantly knock on them, and i think the new executive director has to make that a priority, and enlist this commission in helping them. i would be perfectly happy in regard to the budgetary processes as a commissioner if my colleagues would see fit to

work with the executive director to meet with the budget analyst and meet with the mayor's people and i know the dance. i have done it for many years, and i think to do that in regard to getting things like a secretary. we need a secretary. i don't think the next executive director whoever it is should be sitting up here in the middle with us. for one thing that makes that person a target for the public. oh he's running the place. whoever the executive director is he should be down there with the staff and a secretary at the end of this table as we had as i recall when i was on the police commission carries out all sorts of good functions and briefing us as a commission and at the same time isn't subject to the kind of pressures that the executive director is in terms of --

well, if i say this will they think i'm not doing my job right or should i keep this under the table? those are just the realities of the dynamics between us as a commission and our executive director which we wouldn't have those dynamics if we have a secretary as commissioner andrews said. that's why it would be so valuable. >> [inaudible] secretary's responsibility is to report the information. >> exactly. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> [inaudible] always have that role and responsibility from a seat down there but the same person that has the role and responsibility isn't the same person reporting out on proceedings and activities, and i think that would be a great separation of responsibilities. >> i agree. >> and i think it all depends what money we can get and what our priorities are, but to me

enforcement is like you guys are saying enforcement is a big one and we have to figure out how best to spend t but certainly more help would be great. >> that is part of the budget lobbying as well and enforcement first but these other things as well, but you've got to go ahead and lobby for your agency. someone's got to be in there banging on the mayor and the -- it used to be harvey rose and as a year ago is not the budget analyst. boy that's a change of significance of generation -- over a couple of generations. i think it's a big loss to the city and i thought i knew how to push his buttons. >> [inaudible] >> and but in any event it's got to be -- the job's got to be done and i don't think it's been done. >> from the city attorney there is nothing inconsistent

with commissioners personally lobbying whoever is doling out the funds. >> the commission -- when the time comes needs to be careful about interference with the day to day affairs with the commission staff. that line which is often hard to walk, but working with whoever that executive director is, and the commission, and i am sure we can figure out ways that the commissioners can be helpful to achieving the goal, but it's -- it will be a line. >> thanks. >> all right. turning to agenda item 9, items for future meetings. public comment. >> yes. since you had a bit of discussion on the budget. david pilpel again speaking as an individual. i think these questions about priorities and

resources should be addressed with the new executive director, and as part of the budget process for next year. i think there are -- you had some of the discussion now but i think there is really a broader discussion and a good and fair debate about work load and priorities, auditors, enforcement, commission secretary. one thing you might want to consider in relation to the commission secretary that the port commission i think does successfully they don't meet that frequently and their commission secretary serves part time in that function and part time as the secretary to the port director so you wouldn't necessarily need a full time person to serve as commission secretary. that person could perform other tasks in the office and restructuring of staff and responsibilities and all of which you should discuss with the new executive director, and then terms how resources happen in the budget process certainly the commission can be

involved with the director and i wouldn't call it lobbying. they might have to register but to try to seek additional resources. i think as changes to the laws have happened whenever something is proposed you should try to get in there seeking an appropriation for resources to meet the additional need et cetera and i think the expenditure lobbyist measure does that and that is kind of a model and really the additional functions that we might want for the commission be it auditing, enforcement, secretarial or other are really not that expensive in the grand scheme of the city budget. we could probably better resource the commission for 100, 200, $250,000. it's not like millions for street repaving or something else, so there maybe other ways and i agree that the new executive director should be a strong advocate for resources to meet your mandate. thank you

. >> do i hear a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> second. >> any public discussion? >> [inaudible] >> pardon me? >> [inaudible] >> is there discussion on future items? public discussion on adjournment? call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? . hearing none we are adjourned.

>> housekeeping items one it is to first if you could turn off your cell phones or put them on vibrate and second a spectator or speaker and wants to make a public comment on any items oils on the agenda we have speaker cards if you want to hand it to the staff and finally thank you to sfgovtv and media services

for producing this and airing that live to the public arrest roll call. >> commissioner frost commissioner lee commissioner vice president joseph commissioner moshoyannis commissioner caminong commissioner president tan for the record commissioner perez is absent this evening. >> all right. we have quorum the first item on the skwaupd is public comment any business-related to the taevengs it you didn't currently agendize any public comment? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed the approval of the minutes of august 15, 2015, i don't know if so this in everybody's packet i think you wrote mia megabit that can i get

a motion it continue >> motion to continue stepson there is a motion and a second any public comment seeing none, let's take a vote. >> commissioner frost commissioner lee commissioner vice president joseph commissioner moshoyannis commissioner caminong commissioner president tan the motion passes those are moved to the text negro and item 3 a director's report take it away as you may know we've been working on implementing the cheaper one 16 night life protection we had a meeting at 3 we'll hear some go about that when the item comes up on the report for the social development review committee as i mentioned for the whole commission we've been working i

think successfully with the planning department to finally get the notice pushed out to the project in the pipeline so i'm hovp hopeful that the hundred projects will be noticed for the legislation requirements in 4 banishes of two weeks in between each hopefully in the next two weeks everyone will get notice and they will either communicate with the staff and or go to that we've got the lapsing hammered out as i said we've heard the first two projects it is happening which is cool and the board came back from recess last tuesday and at this point they finally approved the

amendment to the llp legislation in western selma that's waiting for a signature at the mayor's office we can currently at this point get those folks both the office and get those posted about 4 pent-up venues waiting for llp applications to move forward so i'm happy to report that is finally moved move forward and we spent some time and the guys will tell you about the concert at at&t park and give you feedback that was a lot of work in the parks so also there are questions i'm going to turn it over to any colleague. >> thank you, dr. cain and good evening, commissioners director and dr. not yet director. >> a few outdoor requirements

that were inspected this past weekend as kickoff at city hall we had an event on fedex hotel and one that in the mission for block party all 3 went off without my complaints coming to our officers the noise event was audioable and no complaints generated we did another event this is maybe the third or fourth with met cosmetics and at the last meeting this system was pared down from previous systems what actually placed on the ground and did an extensive sound check with them activating the space to make sure that the impact to

that general area was minimal and not received complaints? >> for that event and under billy joel at at&t park there was an investigation i was able to take ambient measurement in dog patch and inside the stadium director cain was a meeting tomorrow to present what we found and try to get more dlarm able to hire folks to run a hotline and take more measurements we want to compare our finding with there too pretty important things to not for the permit on saturday the sound coming from one within the stadium if start at the time on the permit we issued to them and

the event went later than stated on the permit i'll be happy to answer any questions about that event >> can you tell me what time the event end and it was 710 i'm sorry 1110. >> the permit was until 11. >> yes. >> was any citations issued. >> we were speaking with director cain after tomorrow's meeting be issuing a notice of violation. >> commissioners questions or comments all right. thank you >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners i have a long list but i'll keep the short i want to touch on

relevant things i did things that are articulate arbitrarily picked up we received a complaint from the bar sergeant mathis made contact with the bar to lemon them know to keep quiet and in a followup i talked to the complainant with a followup i didn't preserve a violation and how much or hopefully, the situation will stay solved the inclines is t f-319 clemente i was other on an inspection and find out that they do live performance stuff regularly part of the operation to they don't have a permit out of inclines we'll follow-up and hopefully bring them into compliance i did

3 sound checks at the price club and nothing extra to report just menu detain report a couple of inspections to mention that were minor vlations permit not there at golden state permits the copies were issued i'll make sure the they're posted feel free to ask me if not - >> this isn't on your list here but the common wealth club the common wealth the university club. >> the university club. >> has any news about where they're at. >> at the universities club? >> do you have one.

>> oh, the city club the city club sorry it is actually issued that the director is dealing with them i think she's deal with their lawyer now. >> could we get an update anything. >> the only update i reached but out and got an extensive rely back had a conversation about our city attorney and relied back to his inquiry and waiting inform an additional response. >> pending the united states all pending. >> questions for inspector pauley no nun great this evening any public comment on our staff report? >> not seeing any, so public

comment is closed. we'll move on to item number 5. >> - had the police department questions or comments are there any general police department questions or comments i don't think so all right. moving along item 5 which is our permit application and i am sorry. >> we'll take things out of order and do our 3 loudspeaker permits first. so we have those 3 loudspeaker permits from swiss their a typical their couple of in the next two weeks here basically, they don't fit within the process because the location of where they'll be they'll be in a park let for all the permits is 7:30 montgomery street it is

swiss max we don't say a policy regarding issuing the loudspeaker permits in park let we're seeking our help this evening for possible condition from the commission for moving forward with the permitting of events like this we've asked maryellen johnson to join and robin here from the planning department and we're hoping they help to shed this some light how to move forward so robin can you actually come up first >> thank you deputy director i'm robin the park let program manager of the san francisco planning department i'm here to provide background on the project and answers any questions the commission might have and offer inside and experience that the planning department has had in managing a portfolio for the city parks

before maryellen comes up to talk about the program their seeing permits prosecute the taefksz i thought i'd like let you know that swiss is a fantastic partner and a great institution for parklets to work with they're a nonprofit their mission to bring culture performance events other learning opportunities to communities paichlt has so you get a partner like swiss max to partner in order to bring an organization institutions culture program into the public realm we know this is not the fit folks want to use the parklets we recognize this is a typical at the same time it is really emblematic and representative of what our streets and public spaces could

do to bring this to san franciscans i welcome any questions from the commission and really hope we're able to describe a pathways that might provide a blue prinlt for in public space activation in other parts of city. >> why not just hold off i think we might have some questions initially for the gentleman. >> i'm not clear could you tell me if a park let is front of the of the business is that business responsible. >> ; correct the sponsor a commercial or enterprise in this case it is a nonprofit that stuttering is responsible for the capital and also take out liability and required by the public works as a permit at the

to hold a million dollars insurance liability naming the city as an additional insured they're responsible for maintenance at the same time - >> commissioner. >> i didn't mean to cut you off. >> we have strict operating guidelines for parklets thaer those are hundred percent parking spaces the city in look at those for public space and realize that parklets can be a bit unclear about that so it is part of you know objective my role to clarify the operation around the parklets. >> who makes the decision what kind of entertainment in the parks is it the business that is responsible for it or a committee that programs the park lightwells elites how does that

work. >> that's an excellent question if they steady thresholds at certain events they seek to do there is amplified sound is it brings to us to the commission we have oscars with their guitars but they try to stay pretty tentative to what is happening in the parklets sometimes a lack of clarity or clarity and we don't want to work against that those spaces are public. >> so if i have a guitar i can walk up and play my guitar you're asking for permits so my question is who is making the decision about what - if so it is is not someone walking with a guitar can sometime program a parklets to i mean obviously if

they want a loudspeaker permit they have an idea to do something; right? >> that's right ♪ 3 that case we issue the loudspeaker >> i'm not being clear let me try it who is making the decision what entertainment is in the park. >> i believe this is this committee. >> the question is if i was joe smoe and i wanted to perform in a park let do you go to the planning department or swiss next or the owner or let the steward. >> i think first and foremost you'll approach the steward to make sure that is access to everybody nobody is excluded or circled out. >> so the steward can say

george who can perform as to the sound. >> striking speaking they can't do that. >> i guess my question is who is applying for the permit is that the musician, the steward or you guys well in this particular case the steward. >> they're making the station what is going to gone in the park. >> right. >> they're proposing activities took place in the park let you think they're to the commission - their succumbing to the commission for permission as i understand working with the staffers concerns. >> maybe i take it out of turn it brought up the definition those are the stewards we know those are the people that maintain it and have the liability they want to activate

it but i have robin what happens in someone else comes to me noted swiss next i don't know who the steward are for how many parklets. >> 60 >> i don't want to know obviously it seems to me it is a little bit of a question mark it is a public space and someone else wants to activate it and ask the steward. >> there's a great open question about process you know we've been on the staff level for the portfolio to all strerldz a stakeholders are informed but their question commissioner vice president joseph not a set protocol or criteria and it is something that the commission and the

planning department and public works should work together to fourth we get a lot of questions in sort of informal requests to begin cpr parklets for more information. >> this is an interesting question i would hate to formalize a policy today around it we're obviously going to use this as an example to try to create or use a policy because i think in my conversation with director cain band do we treat this like a street or park how there are questions i was looking at into more deeply and come back and decide something together but i'm going to call on a couple of more people there are more voices on the commission. >> commissioner moshoyannis.

>> is the park let part of the street will mta have a role in that at all which agencies if any have jurisdiction in that matter. >> that's an excellent question so it is still considered formally part of the street to legally we're occupying a piece of street or park let you say we the park let occupies a piece of the street and the department of public works issues a permit for that occupancy to legally happen okay. >> so they should would be part of the conversation at some level. >> absolutely over the last 5 years of running the program we've worked closely with the department of public works. >> i think for me, i mean the devil is in the details there is obviously sidewalk between the business and is park let usually

where people are transfersing and foot traffic usually trying to cut though how do we manage that makes sure there is assess both was and people are not tripping over each year and e each other and it is a hot mess and problem so i remember when you close down a street make sure there is a path of travel and people can get through someone is in a wheelchair it raise all kinds of issues that will be a complex issue as we explore is further. >> who is responsible if they're in compliance who do we get know they're in inclines you know if it is a freedom of speech it is one thing a political campaign when people come to us with street fairs or you can those kinds of events an

organization we know who do go to for the loudspeaker permits if people have a venue they want to activate their patios with speakers we know who to go to this could be anybody. >> right today is permits we have a project sponsor so we know who to call if there is something not going right. i think for the conversation had requires more thinking commissioner lee and commissioner frost. >> so my question is say the park let goes out of control or the sponsor doesn't maintain it properly what steps is the planning commission your excision rerevokes the permit if they don't handle it properly. >> the permit revolver indication is a consequence if we have a steward not meeting

their stewardship obligations or seeing issues that parklets and private dining for example one example we admonishment if we find a restaurant it is your has correspond off their park let the revocation is a consequence that's the last resort we try with the planning department and the department of public works issuing the permits works with the project sponsor most often 99 percent of the time the issues are smaller hey, you don't sweep enough and the upstairs neighbors are exclaiming. >> your really to trying to be responsible to take care of the parklets same it is a weird thing a public space if someone wants to swat there how do you - evoking their rights what

happens to the park let if we tend not to maintain it properly it goes back to a parking. >> that's absolutely one consequence and with an we've seen a couple of times when we have a park let that hadn't been stewarded or in the upper hates the steward left town and had this orphaned organization none was wanting to do you want paichlt is interested in monitoring how projects all the time. >> okay. >> commissioner frost. >> yeah. just think we're opened a can of worms to talking about giving a permit to a public place for a loudspeaker for on imposing groups want tool

take this over what happens to the permit this is down the road but on this one we're one the occupancies estimate was 50 people i don't think i've seen a park let that holds 50 people i don't know where the people will go and supervisor demerit brought up who is going to control that so again, we do need to discuss this you know later on to come up with the perimeters on this but for those 3 we'll dealing need to talk about to the applicant. >> may i have respond to some of the questions about clearance and the project sponsor is prepared a site plan.

>> you have it. >> it is in the packet. >> so the public can see it is not projected. >> because this is an a inadequately proposal something new you know somethings that came up for the entertainment commission to maintain a clear path of travel for wheelchair users or general passersby we responded recommended to the project sponsor to guarantees the 6 foot clear a path of travel which the san francisco regulation is for so that at no time during the liquid speaker events are there people or if there are audio equipment or anything

encroaching on the of foot right-of-way and something that might be important to note the commissioner referred to an application an estimated attendance of up to 50 people we're not imagining those people will physically be in the project my understanding and the park let will be what they project imagery or a lecture like a two minute moving on the park let screen you might if you have a guest speaker or musical performer they'll sit on the sidewalks and in the storefront observing the form is a the musician is physically inside the park let that's what we're looking at here and again, we do

need to talk about in future conversations what perimeters the commission and public works and planning feel comfortable with in terms of operating the perimeters for these kinds of events and activities and commissioner vice president joseph. >> yeah. i have a couple of questions occupancy load is people all at once the occupancy load is 2525 is the maximum if one leaves one can go in 50 doesn't make sense that is why commissioner frost mentioned that to your dining room diagram is this park let 6 feet deep and what is the dimensions i'm not sure clear. >> this is a note for the

project sponsor to maybe bring is prepared dimension plan the blue box prepared by swiss next. >> oh, i see. >> that's the part sitting in the parking lane this is about 7 feet deep the width of a parked car. >> what is the yellow part that says rejection park let what is a that a screen beyond the pacific ocean park let what are very projecting. >> it is a mraurm that sits in the parking lane and then the far sort of wall or edge of it is a tall frame that during events like this we can clip a fabric projection screen. >> so the frame is within the park let. >> absolutely. >> okay. and the speakers are outside the park let. >> i'm actually not. >> according to this p