communication from mr. sutton's office indicating a willingness to want to talk about it. she wants directions from us as to should there be communications with them. should there be discussions about settlement? should there be any discussions or should it just be-he's asking for advice >> iv is asking us to do his job. there the collection agents. i would imagine any debt they go after they've had mechanisms in the past to demand the whole thing or perhaps get eight installments or settle for less. that's not our job. >> he told me is the agency is seeking the death that controls the disposition. not the

treasurer's office. >> so what is it were being asked to do? >> to give him directions. i don't think we need to go into closed session for that. i think we should recommend accordance with our findings to go ahead and collect the debt. that's my motion. >> i love the motion was to take it off calendar notes a different motion? >> i'll withdraw the motion in light of the chairs! >> if they want us to drop down the rabbit hole with him and to play in the house in

wonderland game, i'll go along and put it in that kind of language and they need direction they should collect the debt. that's my motion. >> what role do we play beyond this.? to replay an active role along the way. is this the normal operating procedure every time every time it's passed before collection? >> do we have anything more, yes. what he is saying he's got a letter saying we want to talk about it and he saying should we talk about it? it's not the treasurer who's the client. the client and he's asking us for

any input as the client how we want to proceed. [inaudible]. i'm saying the purpose of putting this on was to give a commission opportunity to decide how, what instructions they want to give to the treasurer's office. as to how they should proceed. >> i'm sorry that doesn't make sense to me. we now have to be in the position tallies the cities collection agency had a good about steps of collecting a debt. that's beyond in

competence. >> it sounds to me is not to file a complaint unless the commission says that's what we want you to do. he's not paying the debt. the way to enforce it is in courts. sort of gathering is he saying, ethics commission if you tell me about a complaint of file a complaint but if were giving him some other direction try to settle the case then that's what i'm gathering he's looking for. >> my motion as he files a complaint. there's no reason whatsoever to go into closed session on this. it would just give the appearance that somehow were knuckling under to supervisor farrell good share of the budget committee which gives it a greater appearance of genuflecting to an instrument of power. we finally decided to

in a discussion that went on quite exhaustive and agonizing way we have the public involved in it, as long as we don't go back into the merits of this it's fine with me. but we've got stuff here from sutton who represents supervisor farrell in which if we, he misrepresents the record entirely in terms of what we as a commission did. i we can get into that in terms of mr. sutton's misrepresentation of the record of what we did in saying that mr. st. croix., indeed, wade and we overruled

him. that's a lot by mr. sutton. he points to a letter and said mr. st. croix the language is not in that letter. i we to get into this all of a sudden or what? why? >> have the same understanding of what the treasurer's office seeking from the chairman has described. this particular item was a close session. because as an option so you don't need to go and close session if you don't want to but to facilitate any possible discussion of legal issues if you want to have such discussions. the me also say, i by no means had a plan to make a lengthy presentation or to have a long item or discussion that this particular matter. but we understand the commission set many meetings about this. i understand the lateness of the hour. so you don't have to go into class close session but if

we do go into closed session i sure you all make the most efficient use of your time possible. >> if are going to talk about what we should to in the litigation we have to do it in closed session. otherwise,-this is a different procedural posture we dealt with the last time. last time we were trying to decide whether we should withdraw something, a forfeiture requested that was made by the executive director. that to me is a different procedural posture and whether and how to pursue litigation in a matter. i think it's a different standard of how confident you need to be in your litigation position. only went to last time is pretty

unprecedented procedure. this is a pretty standard procedure about whether pursue litigation. i think we know very clearly how and when you would want to go and do that. so, i think it's a very different. i don't think everything was fully decided in terms of what you would do as a litigation plaintiff in our last meeting. >> i move my original motion. that this is out of order and go off calendar. it's been seconded it. >> public comment >> as far as i know it's unprecedented since went back to this body. have a list of

outstanding debts that are owed to kevin been fined by the ethics commission. not one of those has ever been sent back to this commission to ask you want us to do something about it. they been on the books for a year. nothing has come back to this commission saying what about these, what about these, what about those. furthermore, in some cases you have a system of someone having to pay 1000 word $2000 and from that point on $500 a month. you never get reports in those $500 amounts are being collected. are they being corrected? there's no report. there's also nothing that shows a vast you to do this. it's word-of-mouth. nothing was provided to the public to tell us that they were asking you to revisit what to do. it seems to me that

makes this an inappropriate issue for the commission. >> i strongly agree. it's inappropriate at this time. i have mr. sutton's letter here. if you read that last page letter sent to stephanie prophet esquire, so she's an attorney, or stop she should've advised the treasurer this matter was coming up as a possible litigation issue to see what should be done, and if i would have if i was the treasurer i would've sent it back to you notification that we were going to proceed with a lawsuit to collect pursuant to what the law says. unless you hear anything to the contrary, please be advised that's what's going on. my view is that when

mr. sutton requests we therefore request this of your original letter demanding $190,000 and asked we formally closes matter, it seems to me they should have said, you have to make that request to the ethics commission. in a way that will reopen the case and perhaps at that point it would be appropriate for mr. farrell to personally make that request because everything is going to his representative. even this letter is exchanged. it's never gone to mr. farrell directly. i would say at this point if mr. farrell wants to reopen this matter before you and appears here in person then i'd be interested to see what he has to say. i would also be

interested in your ability to talk to him and asking questions, whatever those questions whether appropriate or not appropriate whatever you want to do. but i'm thinking that at this point, it's between mr. farrell and his conscience to raise this issue again before you. really it is inappropriate to be back in your shop i think you should advise the treasurer that he's collected that like you normally would like in this case probably litigate it and then negotiate accordingly. >> this matter was discussed at great length with several past commission meetings. i think i agree with barry and

commissioner keane_get would have an active selective exchange of letters. is nothing for the treasurer tax doctors office explaining what a sprained earlier in terms of their procedures. i'm actually not up to speed on the code and their own internal procedures for how they handle debts of any size including ones this large. at a minimum, i think you should've got the public should see pork from the treasurer's office what's been done in the last six months to collect. it was an exchange of letters. i don't know what was sent the treasurer to supervisor farrell or jim sutton and whatever else or maybe a whatever avenues are to resolve this. i heard there was a request to discuss and resolve the matter and actually read that in the sutton letter unless a misunderstanding it,

if there was some other letter the public certainly has not seen that.. i'm not deeply interested in the litigating the matter. i think that between the commission and the city attorney somebody got it wrong and i actually think common sense of voters is the entity we speak going after because they're the one that received the contribution and they should be made to forfeit but that wasn't my call to the extent anyone made a judgment was mark farrell the mets the judgment. i would need to see more information the treasurer's office all happened in the last six months and what the options are. i don't think this issue if rampant public so i agree with commissioner keane's motion to not take action tonight. >> i agree with some of the previous speakers. the bottom

line is, if the treasurer sent a letter to this commission saying we cannot proceed until you tell us a, b, and c give me clear information as to what the problem seems to be, then it's really nothing the public has been noticed about nothing even noticed about you should've appeared on the agenda and out to say on the sun-dried ordinance it's not properly agenda iced. this is nothing what the heck this is about. organ of a close session and discuss something. now as far as the relitigating we talk about that perception. we can't want this and from public as there might be a question or two related to legal issues. everything i see people going to private session to come back and say were going to disclose.

no. i wondered to myself, your same 1% of what you talk about in a close session is nothing you can disclose. that happens all the time. it gives the perception we went in the back room and made a deal. will come out here and try to justify it to you. the bottom line, he had his day in court. if many appearances. he didn't have -i'll be honest with you the integrity to show up and explained himself why he did what he did and why he felt he was not responsible. he sent a bunch of other people try to explain why they think he's not responsible. he's responsible. you found him responsible to hold him responsible. going into the back and having another meeting i get the feeling from your discussion that you don't know what the treasurer wants. so what are you going to do? go back and sit there for an hour, hour and

a half what is with to do to say to the treasurer? obviously, the treasurer probably does normal things. he follows in order to pay the money. they come back and say we negotiate. in all vacherie handled by the treasurer because that's what they're paid to do. if this isn't-number one it should be handled tonight definitely does is not properly on the agenda. this no information here that we actually have that we can see with the treasurer has said and again it's hearsay. i'm not denying anybody's honesty. i'm simply saying the public has a right to know why the treasurer is raising this issue is made to have a problem with the treasurer. >> commissioners, any comments? commissioner hur

>> on this question or read litigating, i hope everyone knows not to enforce the get in course matter will be litigate. it's not a real litigation of anything. that is the point at which you will be litigated. what i'm also understanding from the chairman, the treasurer will not file a lawsuit unless he gets direction from the ethics commission to do so. so the result of not doing anything when taken this item off the agenda is that no lawsuit will be filed. so, i'm a little bit confused frankly about what everybody is saying here especially in light of what you have said in previous meetings, but that is my hair standing of this agenda item. it came out of a discussion with the

treasurer's office.'s >> how do you know this >> because i believe that chairman. >> let me say, i'm going to speak out against the motion that the purpose-and clearly this is a session to discuss litigation. not to be litigate but to discuss litigation and how it should be handled. and we are the clients. under all procedures, that is always done in closed session. the results of that will become apparent as the matter proceeds. to drop it

from my calendar, i was asked -the treasurer asked what commissions of view is. i said i can't give you an answer for the commission. i can give you only my own personal preference. that howard might be handled. but it's up to the commission, the five of us, and that is the purpose of it being there. to come out of that meeting having had a full discussion about the pros and cons of how the treasurer should proceed. if the answer is proceed full barrel, that is fine. but i think there's never been a discussion by the commission of how they want--what

instructions they want to get to the treasurer if there's overture's to settle, if there's overtures to do alternate dispute resolution, whatever it is, the treasurer will look to us to give them an answer. >> with all due respect were not the treasurer's-that's not our job. if the treasurer is trying to pass the buck to have us do its job for it, i don't think we should accept that. i call the question on my original motion. >> call the question. all in favor say aye. opposed? the motion fails. now, the question is to have a motion to go in closed session? public comment?

can we take that without objection? without objection >> i think you should make clear what the vote is. only had three or four members of voting. >> it was 1-4. >> i pose the motion for some of the reasons commissioner keane out early. i think you, public discussion height of proceed. as was stated earlier. the stuffing in writing from the treasurer. as a representative from the treasurer's office. it's not clear what their processes when something is referred to them so as a matter been referred back to the commission and the commission would initiate litigation. if so then maybe your property discuss it but that's not clear and if you're not initiating litigation but

only urging the treasurer to do so i'm not sure if client and i'm not sure you should be in closed session. if you're not actually plaintiff in the action. there's a lot of questions about where we are procedurally and i would resolve them by not dealing with this further tonight but putting something in writing and having staff prepared a memo so we know where we are procedurally. at the end of the day, i think supervisor farrell will continue to contest this matter and is unlikely to pay all the amount in my view is occupied any the amount and the question is, how much in terms of public resources should be going in-should we additionally put in to collect was likely an

uncollectible debts. i think that's a strong consideration but how much money the staff the city attorney the treasurer how much money will put into this effort and where does this end. where is the public benefit to any of this? is the setting of good signal for the future to deter others from this condo. i'm not sure. >> i also oppose going into closed session. the bit of an irony in having mr. sutton make a request since he is himself the person who received the largest fine ever done by this ethics commission. which was $800,000. we certainly never saw him come back and say, to the department of delinquent revenue, if you back to the ethics commission and asked them if they really want us to take to pay the money we decided we all. it just got done. i think you have to ask

the treasurer's office show us where you've ever done this. this ethics with the health department with a part of building inspection with planning with anybody and said we want to know whether you want us to collect the debt. i don't think it happens. >> i'm still unclear the commission chairman did contact the treasurer. and asked and was this the treasurer himself -did ask what the next step is in the treasurer said the commission needs to give me advice on how to proceed with the collection with this client whose apparently whose agent is refusing to proceed further and is demanding we resend these

orders and close the matter. if that is the case, it seems like the next step is litigation and that you'll take up an executive session and have to discuss this, but i would urge you to skip stick by your guns and i would urge you to consider the reality this was a very egregious offense the way this happened. this cost or change the outcome possibly of an election. i think you have to understand this is not a minor matter that now can be dropped. however, a little concerned the treasurer's nonappearance in all this. he obviously doesn't want anything in writing so i don't think he's going to be a particularly

robust litigator. it may be this body would have to initiate the suit itself through the city attorney. in that case you probably want to call mr. herrera and vitamin and vitamin to your executive session. my thought is you might want to hold that session tonight. you might want to scrub it a little bit more. think about it. >> just so there's no mystery about it, i think the treasurer's asked what i wanted, what the commission wanted to do the reset send a letter. is referred to in mr. sutton's letter. if the treasurer wrote a letter demanding collection and that is that mr. sutton's letter is a response to and the treasurer has us now for any further

guidance as to what commission wants to do. i can't give him that guidance without talking with all five members as to what the guidance is. >> the letter for mr. sutton is going back to the treasurer requesting dismissal after september 30 demand letter. and the luck matter be formally closed that his client has never been convicted of anything. sfpd has cleared him. this last paragraph was pretty insulting frankly given what we know. >> the question is, do you stand by your decision. he stood by your decision in front

of the public summary make a motion to say but it's direct the treasurer to proceed as would normally proceed in any other such step or any other such matter. if you do not i can see it coming back again and again, every step of the process whether it's arbitration or whether it's negotiation or whatever, back from the chores. they came and said this. what do you want us to do. they did this. what you want to do. the bottom line is he broke the law. you agree to it. you found. you find them and you send it to the treasure which i think is the normal procedure. i have to agree with one of the other speakers, many commission never heard any treasurer machen say anything about any debts that were collectible. if you send it to them accept it and they

go collect. but why are they coming back here at st. giving you instructions and frankly what again are you could go back and discuss. you don't really know what it is the treasurer wants. if you go back and come back with some jerryrigged thing with rent the treasurer saying this is what i need. again the most important thing is we need something, the public can see that you treasurer put you in this position not that the treasurer had a private conversation with one individual and as a result of that now going to these machinations. that's what it looks like to me. somebody had a private one-on-one conversation now all of a sudden this is on the agenda.. there's nothing to support it. nothing from the treasurer and again i'm not saying anybody is telling a lie but that's not the way you do business. it's not professional. you don't

have a private discussion with nobody even other members of the commission know what was said because very frankly it's possible the chairman may be misunderstood with the treasurer was saying. i don't know. do you? frankly, all takes is one of you to have all the integrity to say i move we instruct the treasurer to proceed as would normally do in such a matter. get a second, pass it and it will be done. >> i think rather than argue with my colleagues we should at least take the time now. the public as well as they do know what this is about. i didn't know what it was about until you told me a few minutes ago,

mr. chairman. we-i moved to the calendar this to the next meeting. so that we can have a little bit of time out and have it framed in some way that we know what it is we are doing and why were doing it and were also is on the agenda in terms of that so that the public knows. >> i call the question. all in favor of going into closed session? aye. nami session? aye. naminay. will not go into closed session. >> i believe commissioner hardeman cohen andin light of

what commissioner keane said i want a recount. >> it's 3-2 to go into closed session. all right. you want to take a break before we go into closed session we will stay in recess for 10 min. and return in closed session. >>[gavel] >>[closed session].

>> we all know a major earthquake will eventually hit san francisco are reproerl presented san francisco is making sure we are with the public safety buildings.

>> this consists of 4 consultants the police headquarters with the from 850 with a brand new fire station number 4 to serve mission bay swimming pools at office of economic workforce development in the fire station thirty. >> is the the hall of justice on bryant the new home for 2 hundred and 50 uniform and voiven compresses we all it was opened in 19 so sociothat is a 50-year improvement as far as structure and work environment had that will be a great place to work. >> when construction began in 2011 this was with an clear goal to make sure with the big one heights the resident will will have a function police

department those are the highly seismic standards it is up to operate up to 96 hours from the police department perspective that building is self-sufficient for a main made arrest in all disastrous zake ever after we will run our operational from here no matter what happens this building and the people that serve the businesses will continue to function building is designed to meet lead goal certification and also to art installations on the campus that was designed and constructed to better sense of ability so for example, we're using solar water heaters we're also urging gray water for reuse inform flush water and rainwater for the cooling and irrigation

locked on third street and mission rock is it serves the motorbike neighborhood and motorbike i moiks is a growing neighborhood and the intent of the bond to have please and fire serves to serve the community. >> hemming helping to keep the building and the stay safe was the not the only opportunity it creates many jobs with 82 bleb businesses overall san franciscans contributed one hundred and 87 thousand hours to help to complete the project it shows the city of san francisco the elected officials and police officers and more importantly the voters that paid for the building this is what we can do with when we wrorpt this is a beacon when we need to build new extra we can trust them with the

money and the plan they did a good job the san francisco public is a reminder of the importance of being presented and will continue to serve the residents for decades to come a

2, 1 you innovation on or was on over 200 years they went through extensive innovations to the existing green new metal gates were installed our the perimeter 9 project is funded inform there are no 9 community opportunity and our capital improvement plan to the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood it allows the residents and park advocates like san franciscans to make the matching of the few minutes through the philanthropic dungeons and finished and finally able to pull on play on the number one green a celebration on october 7, 1901,

a skoovlt for the st. anthony's formed a club and john then the superintendent the golden gate park laid out the bowling green are here sharing meditates a permanent green now and then was opened in 1902 during the course the 1906 san francisco earthquake that citywide much the city the greens were left that with an ellen surface and not readers necessarily 1911 it had the blowing e bowling that was formed in 1912 the parks commission paid laying down down green number 2 the san francisco lawn club was the first opened in the united states and the oldest on the west their registered as san francisco lark

one 101 and ti it is not all fierce competition food and good ole friend of mine drive it members les lecturely challenge the stories some may be true some not memories of past winners is reversed presbyterian on the wall of champions. >> make sure you see the one in to the corner that's me and. >> no? not bingo or scrabble but the pare of today's competition two doreen and christen and beginninger against robert and others easing our opponents for the stair down is a pregame strategy even in lawn bowling. >> play ball.

>> yes. >> almost. >> (clapping). >> the size of tennis ball the object of the game our control to so when the players on both sides are bold at any rate the complete ends you do do scoring it is you'll get within point lead for this bonus first of all, a jack can be moved and a or picked up to some other point or move the jack with i have a goal behind the just a second a lot of elements to the game. >> we're about a yard long. >> aim a were not player i'll

play any weighed see on the inside in the goal is a minimum the latter side will make that arc in i'm right-hand side i play my for hand and to my left if i wanted to acre my respect i extend so it is arced to the right have to be able to pray both hands. >> (clapping.) who one. >> nice try and hi, i'm been play lawn bowling affair 10 years after he retired i needed something to do so i picked up this paper and in this paper i see in there play lawn bowling in san francisco golden gate park ever since then i've been trying to bowl i enjoy

bowling a very good support and good experience most of you have of of all love the people's and have a lot of have a lot of few minutes in mr. mayor the san francisco play lawn bowling is in golden gate park we're sharing meadow for more information about the club including free lessons log >> power it's all around us in the sun and the winds and caves waves power that lights our homes while protecting our natural resources clean power will provide power to san franciscans how about works right now our power is from pg&e from non-renewable systems that

comes over pg&e maintained lines with clean power your energy about think generated by caesarean more renewable sources come to our home e.r. businesses to the pg&e lines at 62942 working with together we can support your children. it's been my dream to start is a valley school since i was a little girl. i'm having a lot of fun with it (clapping) the biggest thing we really want the kids to have fun. a lot of times parents say that

valley schools have a lot of problems but we want them to follow directions but we want them to have a wonderful time and be an affordable time so the kids will go to school here. we hold the classes to no longer 12 and there's 23 teachers. i go around and i watch each class and there's certain children i watched from babies and it's exciting to see them after today. the children learn how to follow directions and it ends up helping them in their regular