everything that i need to. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> any questions? >> with regard to the unfilled positions, since they won't be filled until hopefully the end of the year, what impact will that have from a budgeting standpoint since we'll have unused payroll between now and the fiscal year. is it a use it or lose it scenario? >> yes. it's always a use it or lose it. the budget process calls for a 7.7. it will take 3 months or more to hire for the position. >> it will have the full positions authorized in coming year. it is important to get it clearly for the work we have to do. when we don't, we have a salary recruit savings

and we can use it on an as needed basis. the priority is to get those positions filled as quickly as we can. >> thank you. >> public comment? >> commissioners, ray hart, san francisco open government. let's talk about what is always missing in this report. anything to do with the sunshine ordinance. despite the fact that we have heard about this commission's authority under law. after all, what could you say. we have never and will never do anything to enforce open government laws. we don't give a damn what the citizens of san francisco passed by this two-thirds majority. we won't enforce it. not only that, we won't do anything in our power to provide any level of transparency from achieving their

goal. adding insult to injury, we won't disparage that subject. you can para phrase kelly in pogo. you can sit there and say i'm tedious. what is the real expectation. if you find something and believe it and go a away and not bother anymore. what you resist persists. if you won't respond, then you provoke a reaction.

they do things which discourage it. look at this room. who pays attention to these meetings. who thinks it's worth the effort? i few of us. some will get on your good side. they are still working on the old premise if you are nice and polite and pow pow maybe they will work with you, but i have learned my lesson. you don't get anywhere being nice. and besides, this is not a forum for being nice. this is a political arena. you are a politician as much as the commissioner earlier. i'm not a politician. yes you are. this is a political theatre. beginning to end.

it's all politics. and everyone of you knows it. it's just you don't want to admit it. public speaker: david pal pell, i want to highlight a few things. the agenda refers to the ed's report with date september 21st, and the final report dated september 22nd. we should proof the report. the detail in this report, if this is what we can expect every month, i think we are doing fine and really the level of detail is appreciated. there wasn't a meeting in august. so maybe it's you know, twice as much as we would normally see. i do appreciate it. in particular, the attachment 6 with the age of the open formal complaints and the matters in

preliminary review. i have asked for this for many years. it's great to see it and hopefully we'll make this a regular part of the report and not just a quarter thing if there is a way to make this monthly. excellent. and the policy program is appreciated as well. the final thing i wanted to highlight on page 6 of the report, the delinquent revenues, there is one in particular that concerns me. i know we are going to hear about the mark farrell case in a few minutes. but the chris jackson matter. i have talked about this a few last times. by the way, i have found jessica to be helpful an refreshing to the addition of the staff. with regard to chris jackson, he served on the community college board for some time. he ran unsuccessfully for supervisor

resigned his position, left town. i understand he's now living in oakland and a candidate this november for the oakland school board. i'm informed that were he running for a san francisco elected office because he has this outstanding balance, he would not be able to be certified as a candidate where he elected in san francisco, however, that's not the case since he's running in oakland. i don't want to say too much tonight. i think you should calendar this matter for a future meeting as i understand he's not made payment agreed to in his stipulation. people get into a bad place from time to time whether it's about forms, feels, fines, what not. and correct that and get into a better place. >> i'm going to interrupt you. do we have a judgment against

mr. jackson? >> we have one judgment. >> we have a judgment? >> yeah, it's a little complicated. for the past executive director approved a series of payments to be made under the colt payment plan. >> take it from the top. do we have a superior court judgment? >> we have one but not for the full amount. it's old. >> why is it old? a judgment is in effect for 10 years. >> not old, owed. because of the time of first payment to be a delinquent revenue, they only collected or obtained a judgment in small claims court. >> so why don't we go back?

>> we did. >> and get a judgment for the balance. >> absolutely. we referred to the matter to bdr. >> when was it referred? >> last week some time. we learned that he had missed additional payments. so we actually accelerated the total amount -- owed and now we are taking payments. >> thank you. >> anyway, there is a little bit more to it. i didn't want to get into all of it tonight. i think you should calendar this matter for further discussion. if he missed payments under the stipulation, the commission reserves authorities to bring that entire enforcement matter back. that is an option. >> how much is involved in the first one and in the balance? >> the current balance is

$6601.. >> what was the amount of the judgment? >> the judgment was about $2500 which reflected some additional principal and city cost for the treasurer's office. >> why does this have to come back rhetorically to us? >> it may have been a settlement. where we entered into an agreement, but the provisions say if he'll make it, the whole thing comes back. i assume that's what's in that document. >> right. it was a stipulation agreed to by the commission. >> in any event, again, i just think if someone wants to run for office, that's fine, but they should have their forms and fees and fines up to date before they do so and i'm concerned there is a current candidate in this bad place. so, if you

would see fit to either collect the entire amount or if that doesn't happen to bring the matter back for further discussion and consider all of your options. >> i think that item fits under item 10. that's the next one we are going to. >> then i don't have to speak then. thank you very much. >> item 10. discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. >> now, commissioner kopp, there during the course of the discussions tonight you mentioned two or three things that you would like to have discussed with the commission and as was pointed out to you by mr. white because they are not agenda items, with ever to -- we have to put them on the agenda as i assume. if

you recall? >> in terms of overreaching issue. it's what i observe from reading the list of pending investigations. and again, this is a new administration, but the delays are remarkable. i would like that put on the agenda and go through those. i don't want to take 10 minutes on everyone, but and the second part of that is and i will announce publically, that many bear notation that the district attorney is investigating and therefore hands-off. we are not touching it. i know that's a principle and criminal

law investigation which commissioner keane knows better than i. but i'm approaching this as the new boy on the block, and i don't believe there is any law which prohibits us from proceeding, and i think as a matter of policy it should be on a case by case basis. will i would like to raise that. >> i agree with that and i raised that in the past particularly in the form of the executive director using the opportunity to defer any sort of get off his desk matters by saying, well, this is going over to the district attorney or someone else is looking at it. and we used to get those things from him. so i think it bears more inquiry.

there is no reason in many instances for us to not proceed parallel to the proceeding of another body. that was part, our not doing that was getting into the whole brouhaha about the matter. i think we should revisit that >> can you put those two items on the agenda? >> just to make sure i understand what you are looking for. on the annual policy plan for a formal discussion on policy, we have planned for the november, december timeframe. we have been at the staff level with jessica to start digging into the enforcement regulation, but about policy for working with other enforcement agencies and what our procedures are. it sounds like that is one patioes --

piece that you are looking for, but also looking for a specific complaint opened in discussions right now? that matter will be scheduled for a closed session discussion in a future meeting. am i correct that you are looking for both of those items? >> yes. >> the latter item in where they came in and where they are does it have to be in closed session? >> correct. >> public comment on items that you would like to have on the calendar? >> sorry, not to interrupt public comment, chair. one other thing that commissioner kopp mentioned as we were discussing the sunshine ordinance to review the sunshine ordinance, was there a question that you

wanted us to review and what's your timeframe. >> can you do it by the next meeting? >> how about the meeting after that for november? >> it's the process that we would want. would you like to have interest in a meeting prior to meet with you with the changes or the proposed recommendations? >> yes. that would satisfy me. then after december? >> good evening, friends of ethics and let me add my welcome to commissioner kopp. it's going to be interesting to watch this. i am going to repeat pretty much what you just heard from our new deputy

director which is i want to make sure that as you had the discussion about -- item 5 to bed, the issue is still out there which is you have a number of varying organizations, agencies saying what should be covered by the records retention, when it's public and when it's not public. as commissioner keane pointed out, transparency is what you are after. you want to make sure at least from my point of view that the citizens have a right to see how the city government is working for them. i want to make sure that is on discussion for future agenda items. having this in the meeting is very important and i would hope that director and others would sit down in the organization with task force, the records retention hall, whoever is in charge of all

that to work through how can we make sure there is no conflict but in fact we are getting a clear signal to the citizens of what's important. thank you. >> any other comment? public speaker: charlie marcel. yes, following up on eleana's comments. i think what you are looking for is a rewrite of the ordinance or an amendment which is by super majority. you want to build your coalition, you want to get all the interested stakeholders together on the ip meetings. there shouldn't be that much of a rush because we want to make sure everybody has input to that process. i think we will all find it to be very helpful.

on a follow-up i mentioned before, i see some things in the public financing of campaigns system where the concurrent and proactive auditing that is supposed to occur during even the course of the campaign as reports are filed that perhaps the document that is lost oftentimes could be submitted with the report. we could make a special class if you are accepting public financing that you basically have a mini audit for every month where they do a facial audit to make sure that the receipts are submitted with the report to document everything that is stated in the report. that way it keeps the treasurer on their toes, and you don't

have this scramble after the election to try to redocument everything that happened in that chaos of a campaign. it's better to do it concurrent with that campaign process. so that would be my other thing, and that's an issue that came up as well with the lessons to be learned from ms. sweet which i wish her luck, but i really wish she would terminate her committee. if i see her i will tell her. >> thank you. >> commissioners, fred hart, san francisco, open government. i wasn't going to comment on this particular item but i heard something from the discussion that i couldn't let go. all of this dormant strong about this length of time of investigation and the commissioners team, i

filed a complaint with this commission in march and i had an investigation and denial of hearing within 30 days. i filed a second one in april, and i had an investigation and a denial of hearing in 48 hours. so, i don't know what everybody is complaining about saying an investigation is taking too long. 48 hours, that's a really good turn around. if you can't tell i'm being sarcastic because there was no investigation. there was just a blatant effort to look at what i had put in and find reasons to ignore it. the same thing that happened when i brought a complaint to the task force that was referred here the last time and you held a hearing while i was out of the state. you don't like what i have to say. you know that if i had been there that night and able to

actually pursue the complaint i had filed i would have put a lie to louis herrera, we can't project a powerpoint slide in the auditorium. we would have to spend $41,000 to do that. commissioner sullivan at the time got it. he said didn't you look at any other way of allowing the public to do this? oh yes, the only thing we can do was all this construction work. we had to spend $40,000. we didn't think that was a good use of the time. the only thing that achieved were friends of library. they are

invited. would you ever invite mr. hart? of course the answer was no. [ captioner transitioning ] >> >> three hours four hours.

>> all right. any public comment on item 11 which has been continued to october some date in october at our next scheduled meeting. i would hope that if your comments relate to the

substance of number 11, you would wait until october to give us that comment because we will never remember what you said. >> i wanted to say tonight is everybody is listening to the presidential debate normally i wanted to inform our new arrival mr. cop - many millennials are - and a lot of interested parties, that attend these meetings tonight, they're all out watching the debate. god bless them. >> i was looking at the ratings and it appears that we out did them. >> i'm not surprised. you have the hottest agenda in town. >> no question. >> and so much so, you had to

postpone items nobody was here they were tied up. no. i appreciate the fact that some items have been deferred because there will be public interest in those items . >> all right. thank you. any other public comment david papil. i still think we made the better choice but i could be wrong. i wasn't here at the beginning of the meeting did i understand item 11 is being continued. >> it's being continued yes. >> was there explanation about the status of the case because i know it's been continued several times on the motion to strike. >> there wasn't any discussion about it. it's continued in part because one of the commissioners had an emergency leave -. >> and you want all five commissioners okay. from what i understand from the agenda

although the attachment doesn't speak to it it's a $25,000 settlement to the city and mutual release of claims and that would end the matter? that is the proposal in substance. >> correct. >> we will talk about that next month. so nothing is go to happen until then. i think i'm good thank you very much. great meeting tonight. thank you. >> i hear a motion to adjourn. >> item 12. >> item 12 is for more public comment for items appearing and not appearing on the agenda. >> i have people walk up to me on the street say i saw you on

sfgtv they say good job give them hell. i haven't heard people say gee you were rough. years of experience has taught me one lesson no matter how friendly, how polite or whatever you are, the most you can hope for is to provoke reaction. george or well said in time of deceit the most - to motion is an act. i pay less attention to what men say, i just watch what they do. over the years, i have repeatedly ask members of this body tell me anything they have done to make city government more open transparent or honest. the answer is always silence. truly, deafening silence. the

citizens of san francisco know their government to be corrupt and i believe they should be aware that you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. there are at least two of you who take some satisfaction who were not here when there was increase in the budget. although i was dismaid to hear you gloating over the fact there was a huge increase the last time around. what choice did he have after being indicted for several bribes what is he going to say? no? especially over 4 or 5 years where the budget didn't go up a single dollar. bf skinner the father of behavioral psychology

that said behavior is that is rewarded will be repeated. your reaction is reward and i will have that. >> motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> all in favor? >> light for our city and our

streets illuminating our ideas and values starting in 2016 the san francisco public utilities commission is xhoefl that light with new led with the did i audits for better light for streets and pedestrian and they're even better for this vitally lasting longer and consuming up to 50 percent less energy upgrading takes thirty minutes remove the old street light and repeat 18 thousand 5 hundred times while our street lights will be improving the clean energy will remain the same every san francisco street light is powder by 100 percent godfathers hetch hetchy power

in one simple word serious as day turns

>> this is regular meeting of small business commission held on october 3, 2016. this meeting is called to order at 535