increased to this body and i said what are the profane words. give me a list of the words that are prohibited or is it a minefield where every member the public has to walk in and ask and wonder whether or not somebody, not because they really are that worried about the profane word, but simply want to interfere with the speaker will object. we saw the same thing happen to michael petrella's remade up rules that did not exist at the meeting with the sheriff or mr. patel is and i did not determine and i don't rules return us to the members the public that existed didn't exist. you know we are free to speak. let us. >> good evening commissioners.

ethics staff members. my name is luis dylan and i had filed a complaint with the sunshine ordinance regarding the closure of the historical staples in golden gate park. my complaint be much gratified the fact that corruption in city hall to the mayor's office and the other city departments caused the 120 old business in golden gate park to come to an end with the promise of the government modernizing the stables and reopening them. that was ultimately a ploy and a political grab to ratify left members of city hall and not have to deal with any of the

equestrians in san francisco. so after 130 years you're not seeing any horse-drawn carriages down in fisherman's wharf. not seeing children educated in writing verses in the city. taking care forces in the city and ironically, it used to be one of the greatest [inaudible] in san francisco was the police department versus and the activities that came along with them. so even though i did file a complaint with the sunshine ordinance and they agreed with my complaints, i didn't then took it at the time to the ethics commission which was again politically controlled and scuttled my complaints. so as a member of san francisco's

equestrian community to make my living off of horses in the city and seeing nothing but political battles in and unfairness that led us to this tragic state where we've occupied a city that was previously built by equestrian type people. some going to bring in this fax to your attention showing you how mayor willie brown overstepped his authority at the time and how the city departments to pay to play politics followed suit. thank you for your time. >> there being no further

public comments, we will move to the next item which is item 9. discussion of the executive directors report did not take highlighting various programmatic issues and operational activities on the commission staff said the previous monthly meeting that covers a range of topics such as the commissioners budget, policy development, outreach activities, audit programs, and future staff projects. any of the subjects may potentially be part of the director's presentation were discussed by the commission. there are attachments to the march 22 2017 executive directors report and attachments. >> thank you commissioner keane. this months report is very brief. the-as we note, chairman keane and i have been doing outreach around meetings with the most movie sworn in members

of the board of supervisors. we had one meeting. the f3 now that i think will be rescheduled to future dates coming up. but we will keep you posted about that. so opportunity to introduce the commission again and introduce our work and identify how we might be able to work together on issues of shared interest. also in terms of an annual policy plan the update for this month shown as attachment three . one of the notes that was referenced in earlier comments as a whistleblower ordinance. the whistleblower protection ordinance. this is something been under discussion with the controller's office is reported previous executive director reports and the department of human resources. we had an in-depth discussion with an employee organization on march 13. pecking at the request of supervisor breed who sponsored the legislation for us. employer organizations have since requested to meet and confer about a proposal to require training for supervisors in the city to better understand and know how to appropriately handle a

complaint that is brought to their attention about retaliation for having been a whistleblower issue forward. so that is something the department of human resources is going to be scheduling with all the relevant parties in the coming weeks and the department of labor relations team from that department will be scheduling. we don't have any further information at this point about that date is but we have a good reason it should be in the next several weeks. so we will be participating in that. test to staffing and that's been a continuing to be a significant priority for us. this number requirements still underway. as you see on table 1, the investigator's vehicle analyst position we've been in the interview phase and so there's three positions that we are hoping to fill in the next several weeks as the process continues and hopefully concludes. the investigative analyst before the investigator

is in the examined phase specifically in the review and rating of the exams. that's the same for the policy analyst position. the open auditor position and the bacon education compliance officer position we have requested to fill submitted and requested phil is pending so those are the early stages of filling those positions. in terms of the annual policy report to go back to that for one brief moment, we will bring it updated report as we currently have scheduled sequence the items, we have had planned to bring back next months meeting. enforcement regulation and review of related policies and regulations. that is something that will likely get pushed back one month as we dig into

the other issues we talked about earlier. also the a fix topics, extending the following mandate to all 700 file is written as a certain timeframe were gone have to focus on this year to make sure the record relations to enact defiling for everybody. that also will probably than be moved back one month. those are just quick flags prowl trying juggled the issues we got on the radar. i'm having to answer any of questions you might have. >> commissioner chiu >> i have a question about [inaudible] payments ordinance. i believe it was passed and goes into effect in january of 2018. is that correct? >> it becomes operative. the term used in the ordinances becomes operative january 1 that means that the date by which were supposed to have a system they'll be up and running to accept the form 803 payments that will be used for officials. we need to develop a outreach plan and the forms to make that process happen. not done that yet.

>> in terms of becoming operative in january 2018 we have enough one way to make that happen? >> we will have to and that dictates what a process we implement on january 1. >> commissioner kopp >>: talk what the staffing. the people of san francisco ought to know is that this is a sorry record caused by our civil service process. as of july 1, 2016 this commission is authorized to have for investigators.. there was one at the time. that one later departed. now there are four.

it is now nearly april 1. that means 10 months. i'm not going to get into a philosophical argument about public sector and private sector would there's a sad lesson for the people of this city and county of san francisco. the executive directors report just refers to the number of complaints filed with the commission. the commission is provided every month with a document which tells the commissioners took the state of various complaints and allegations. it is sad to

me, and it's sad to our entire commission, i think, and to our staff that we have even now after invoking a 90 days the rule with the dist. atty. city attorney about holding on to allegations when they ask us to suspend any work that we are still in sports lexicon, coming from behind, way beyond. the people of san francisco should know that this is an operate hard-working staff which is to set the candy cap of not having for investigators. 10 months after july 1 2016. it is

genuinely intolerable. it should be rectified. so i will give public notice to those who are concerned that i intend as one person to collaborate with my fellow commissioners and our executive director, and all others in eliminating this sorry situation for the future. thank you mr. chairman. >> commissioner renne

>> i like to echo what commissioner kopp has said. it's a very important point and something we should put our emphasis on. is there any public comment on this item? >> barry bush for friends of ethics. we want to add a few things to the policy. we would like to request that you add to the policy agenda a discussion of the file forum 804 which is free omissions that are given out by city departments. and how are those given out i'm a what is the criteria, for who receives them.? is that criteria somewhat bogus? and what is a cost the taxpayers?

a quick review of the past years of the [inaudible] the city has given up over $1 million of income they could have received in the reasons for people having free omissions include things like going to a sports event in or to see with the facility looks like. read the executive director of the department. so they did not know their own facility to look like till they could go to an event. we would also like to suggest you put in a timeline for disclosure of contributions in the ten-day period after the second election report and so that we can see what monies actually flowing in at that period of time. we there've been discussions before the commission about this report. it is legal authority to do that. as you know, we have a

contribution cap of $500 but in the ten-day period before elections, only contributions of $1000 are important. well obviously we don't have $1000 only $500 no reason to report anything. we've been providing information exactly how much money that is because our experiences that people give at the end of the election when they don't want their identity to be known. often, when the recipient doesn't want the identity to be known. third issues document retention policy. which i know you have on your list of things to do. we would like to see it document retention policy address such things as cell phone usage and retaining doctors there would've been [inaudible]. two were asking all that be included in your future policy agenda. i know you that you don't have enough

to do. thank you. >> there being no further-- i'm sorry - mr. hart's. >> ray hearts, open san francisco. i like to talk what the first item regarding whistleblower protections begins strengthening medics. on the matter of the whistleblower program ever for the public and members of this commission to the comments made by dr. deborah kerr included in the ethics minutes of february 27, 2017 under agenda item number eight. to make it very easy on everybody, those are the minutes that you approve tonight. dr. kerr included hundred 50 word summary talked with some very very important issues related to the whistleblower program. as a recipient of a very large settlement summer in the range of $750,000 from the city of san francisco, for multiple violations of the program, he is certainly well-positioned to

speak to the issue. when dr. kerr states, quote the burden of proof is stacked against whistleblowers" is exactly right. in considering his argument i would like you also to consider the following. "-you may consider the ability of each party to produce evidence. if a party produced weaker evidence when it could've produced stronger evidence he may consider-you may distrust the weaker evidence.". i think the attorneys in the room will recommend that from being a civil jury instructions. there were given to jury saying that if you have one party to could've given you better evidence they didn't what evidence they did give you you can look at sideways. basically, what it really comes down to is the city is always in a position to providing stronger evidence regarding

whistleblowers and the retaliation that is in many cases send their way. but is always in their interest to withhold such evidence even if doing so is unlawful. one of the things i've got used to in fact it's probably the most common comment i hear that every board and commission meeting his comments about the city family. it basically is there our family and we are not going to do anything if they do something wrong. in fact, we are there to turn our somersault if we have to to hide the documents that showed they did something wrong and to prevent them from ever coming before the bar of justice. i mentioned to you the leverage commission and friends of the san francisco public library. i've been going after that for eight solid years and i will go

after it for another eight solid years until i blew it out because it's become such a pernicious and invasive and wrong matter that he needs to be brought to the public attention. listen to dr. curt. whistleblowers need protection. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioners. and ethics that. city attorneys office. i would just like to resonate with what quentin kopp said. there seems to be a definite disconnect between the people of the city, the people running the city, or how the city used to be run. i would term it as a dictatorship rather than a democracy when it's not about the people's vote or the people's will. it's about a agenda that has

specific goals and it appears that anything goes and nothing matters in getting those goals or objectives achieved. my relevance here is that, yes, we do need 3 min. of time to just get our point of views across to somebody because there really is no other avenue in the city to do that. even if you go to the tuesday or supervisors meetings, they're so well orchestrated as to pretty much drowned out relevant public comment.. it's all about these big issues. city college. police brutality. some other thing. but a lot of underlying issues have just never gone anywhere. it's a small city and that equates to apathy when there's no light at

the end of the tunnel and the underdog doesn't have a shot. it's special interests. it's pay to play politics. it's a dictatorship that just doesn't care about what's really happening in the city. consular going to these meetings, you just get burned out because nothing happens. i feel like the city attorney's office is like a foreign entity that's taken over the city and every thing global and everything foreign is important. everything local, everything

traditional is just doesn't matter. thank you for your time. thank you for a properly running these meetings they given us time to speak. alternately, you are the people were to make the decisions and we are going to respect those decisions. thank you. >> thank you. >> one item that i charles-the record again-one item i don't see on the calendar is the discussion of your budget mechanisms. there is something that should be imparted to this commission regarding the--what i call the best practices model, which is a new york city model which allows the commission to file its budget with the mayor the mayor can only comment on those requests

and he must in fact, reserve the amount requested by the commission and send it to the board in its total amount. so if it's incorporated in the mayor's budget in toto submitting it to the board for the purpose of slicing and dicing the policy issues or the funding mechanisms for the degree of funding in open session. so it's both in the board committee that handles the budget but also at the full board discussion of the budget so that any cuts or even additions would be considered by the board in open session at all levels and it would be the votes would be taken in public session. that's the new york city model. the new york city model also has the granting of

independent counsel authority by their corporations council and the city of new york. in this case that would be done by the city attorney if it was constitutional, which i don't know if it is or not. but those are some of the things that the new york city best practices model has the we don't could either be interesting to discuss that model and then take up a possible other mechanisms for funding. for instance, there's a project going up at market-- i'm sorry --at franklin where the zoning envelope is 45 feet but apparently, it's been agreed by the important players in the decision process to raise it to 320 feet in height. i am sure

that's artie been approved, but my point is, with all development occurring, i think we should look at the conditions you use enforcement feed mechanism so ethics get a portion of the designated funds collected from those applying for conditional use to do its enforcement and investigation and higher investigators to do that type of enforcement. so we will talk more about that later but that type of idea that we might be able to take up is an agenda item. >> hearing no further public comment, the go to agenda item 10. discussion and possible action regarding the status of complaints received or issued by the ethics commission. which will be if i hear motion to go to closed session on those

issues. do i hear motion to close session? >> mr. chairman ordinarily i would make one, but i don't know what a closed session will produce. i'm going back to my prior remarks and i thank you for your association with them. look, we've got one woman investigator for all of these. jessica bloom. it just grieves me again, as i said to see this document which by law is confidential to the members of the commission but i don't see anything that i'm going to learn which is new. is that

will change. the realistic than 60 days. >> i would just have one question of ms. bloom. for two months, we've seen an indication that there were to be so show cause hearings and they keep getting continued and i take it that this is simply the fact that you just haven't had time to put these cases together for that purpose right? >> yes mischer renne if i may jump in. i think that is not an issue for jessica. that's been my inability to sit down with her and resolve the matters to move forward. so you are

correct. >> with that, i concur with commissioner kopp that i would see any need to have a close session or any session on the subject matter of item 10 at this meeting. >> i've only one other further comments. >> commissioner kopp >> that is to be assured that 90 days people with the dist. atty., that's being followed right? >> yes. >> thank you. >> i think we do a public comment since an agenda items at any public comment on this? hearing none, we will go on to agenda item 11 discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. commissioner kopp >> i have a number them. they reflect the time and the effort

primarily from friends of ethics. which is certainly a redoubtable entity composed of genuine civic reminded people. i should like to supplement the list from the so-called proposition j subject matter with the following. the following are going to be about seven, eight or nine mme. executive director. i think almost all of them and commented on. almost all of these must take the form of legislative action by the board of supervisors and or submission by this commission

depending upon the outcome in the board of supervisors. first, there was referenced by a citizen who spoke earlier, mark solomon, to a potential conflict of interest by a member of the planning commission who was, or is now -what is it-i forgot what the acronym stands for is been so long. planning and urban renewal. director of everything which occurs in san francisco. as has been pointed out, spur is a major conduit for money

from developers. which pays a salary of that planning the commissioner. that seems to me to be right and is ripe for action legislatively of primitive conflict of interest. secondly, there's been reference also the earth to former law and practice that identified in the voter handbook . candidates who are the recipients of public campaign funds. secondly, to a

requirement if the candidate received applied for and received public campaign funds to engage in more than one debate. i'm going to be a little bit arbitrary and suggest an asking for consideration of three debates. i think i'm also, consideration should be given to identifying in the voter handbook candidates who did not receive public funds, do not apply for public funds so there is complete disclosure to prospective voters. thirdly, we've already discussed the product policy considerations

and in-depth discussion, there was reference to the fact that i think by a citizen who testified-it may have been mr. bush-that slight mala regulation is the domain of the department of elections. i agree with the comments i heard that it should be the domain of the ethics commission. in that same connection, there should also be some priority given in the audit policy to prior violators of any of the laws which form the subject matter of the ethics commission responsibility. as well as

those already mentioned who-by testimony from mr. bush as well as those who failed to identify the occupation or address in their campaign reporting statements. you will recall his testimony that those being the most likely violators of anti-laundering laws. fourthly, i think we should impose a deadline on ourselves or for action. mr. bush mentioned three months. i am going to suggest six months after a allegation or claim of violation and that i would think can be done by regulation

by our own rules but anyway, the attorneys can opine on that legal point but i think we should impose regulation. it's got a be a better world ms. pelham. rav4 crackerjack investigators and five character characteristically attentive commissioner so it's feasible. it is feasible. let's see. i think also, and this must-this will take maybe a charter amendment, if elected candidates successful candidate is under investigation with an investigation based upon allegations that have not been

completed, that person should not be allowed to be installed in the public office for which the person-to which the person was elected. i don't know if that's presidential but i'm sure research will show whether that occurs in la, new york, oakland, wherever else our responsibilities are duplicated. there was also mentioned in public commentary tonight the practice of city officials receiving tickets to events, entertainment events that the public must pay money to attend. i think i recall testimony-that's right friends

of ethics estimates that that amount to about $1 million a year in what can be characterized as lost revenues to the city to the taxpayers of this city. because those are tickets which are not sold and they are given away to public officials. i also think we need -this is a goal-night i guess it's up rule maybe it is a ordinance. document retention. give discussed that couple of times and we had a couple of cases that involve that. but we need to finalize a document retention policy and the private

self telephones and all those in intricacies. i further want us to act-and i would like all of these calendared in some responsible but still sane fashion-maybe not all in april, a be some in april. maybe some in may, i will leave it to you mr. chairman to make that customary decision that this business of election to attend a period, before the election, those local $500 maximum contributions-their $100 to 500. $100 you have to report. 99, you don't. but the 100-$500, that should be covered. on the same basis that

the law now covers requires thousand dollars or more contribution the last 10 days to be reported every day. a couple more and i will be exhausted. it was mentioned earlier today also or maybe he was in informal discussion i want to be sure it's legally within the purview under the charter of the ethics commission, but it isn't the ethics commission, certainly is the board of supervisors and the ethics commission can make recommendations, that there be inserted in san francisco law charter ordinance that an appointed officer or employee of the city and county of

becomes a candidate for election by the people of the city and county of san francisco to any such public office shall automatically forfeit their position as an employee or officer of the city and county of san francisco. there was offhand reference-i can't remember which citizens speaker tonight but the thrust was embodied in a couple of ordinances have been drafted in the board of supervisors and it gets a little bit technical but it deals with nonprofit so-called housing and community development entities which

under a series of transactions involving loans and then sail of the property after it's developed for low-income housing,-and i guess middle income housing in regular market rate housing, have the ability to participate in political campaigns with excess money. and can make donations to candidates and can make donations to urging a yes vote were no vote on ballot measures. apparently, have done so and i will provide staff with copies of these two proposed laws. there's a term which is employed that is called cash

out proceeds. have you ever heard of cash out proceeds? well, it's defined in-i'll give you this little tidbit just to end it. it means in connection with any sale, transfer or refinancing of an affordable housing developments, any and all funds received by an owner of an affordable housing development that are not needed were utilized to retire existing debt or construct, visit improve or preserve your photo housing development. something like a little profit out of a series of transactions and you use that profit to campaign so far against ballot measures or four ballot measures. even though public

financing is an approved or authorized for ballot measures. but it's taxpayer money. okay. i shall desist. >> well, a good set of work tasks for the future commission kopp. i want to complement on you that lists. any comments by commissioners? we would take public comment done. >> commissioners tray heart open government. would like you to take a look at this list.

sorry about the small type. once you get past authorities have hard to get them all on one sheet. i have 33 orders of determination from the sunshine ordinance task force relating to one of two issue. either access to public records and denial thereof, or, interference with public comment at public meetings. whether you like it or not, the sunshine ordinance is city law. whether you like it or not, you are responsible for enforcement of this and never have done a single thing but one time. literally, for years this law has been ignored by this body. just like you are ignoring me for right now. the bottom line is, i've heard a lot of comments about all the task force what's up with them and-really, the comments really sound little bit ignorant. in that if you don't with the task force does when you have rules and regulations in your own-for

your own staff that tell you how to deal with complaints and how to process the complaints and how to do it, it just kind of a willful blindness. we don't like this law. we don't like people like mr. hart's coming here with 33 of these things i'm saying, why don't you do anything about it because it makes us look bad. it does. one attempt was made to commission kopp in previous meeting kind referred to. he says what we can make the mayor fire somebody, can we. no, you can't. but have you got the moral responsibility if you feel that someone has done

something wrong to recommend to the mayor that he take some action? or, is it something well we don't want to embarrass them the mayor because the person we are recommending you dismiss is a mayoral appointee. so we will send over the mayor and the mayor chooses not to answer will just accept that. it's all well and good to have all these peoples and all these regulations make all these processes and procedures, but if you never are able to enforce any of them very frankly, this is a question i've asked this body over and over in the last eight years. can anybody here give me an example of anything this ethics commission has done that is really made this city government more open and more honest? i'm always met with a reply, there's nothing but utter silence. after you shuffle papers. you change the speed rules and is like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. >> commissioners, yes, i am just overwhelmed at the

fundamental changes that i feel going to take place here with -it seems like genuinely interested people on the commission that are not bought and paid for. that is very good to hear. some of the statements coming from the commissioners sound like they're genuinely trying to expose the government which is what the sunshine ordinance was all about. it is so easy when you have a city government structure like this to have the mayor's opinion or decision just taken for granted

and done and that is not the government by the city for the people. so, yes, very optimistic about presenting you the facts of how this doesn't work by showing you previous attempts in my complaint in my orders of determination that were in my favor yet i was not able to come to some sort of resolution with the city.. this tables were closed in september of 2001 which i'm sure you all were aware of was a very modulus and changing time for me as that's when 9/11 happened. but

the stable inhabitants predicted exactly that same time. the mayor that also [inaudible] the resolution then came out after the 9/11 attacks and said he was the only person to have advance warning of the attack. the only person in the united states that knew about the attacks and he was told, not to travel and the same person authorized the resolution evicting every equestrian in golden gate park stables promising them a rebuild hated better functioning place. you can see what we got. zero. both

>> okay. hearing no further public comments, at this point, i will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> i the point of personal privilege. i want to exercise. >> commissioner kopp spee was sitting in the room is the best paralegal in the city and county of san francisco. i'm going to give him his 30 seconds of pay. bradley j cox, stand up. [applause] thank you. >> following the genes commissioner kopp to do a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> we are adjourn. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >>

>> we think over 50 thousand permanent residents in san francisco eligible for citizenship by lack information and resources so really the project is not about citizenship but really academy our immigrant community. >> making sure they're a part of what we do in san francisco the san francisco pathway to citizenship initiative a unique part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and community safe organizations and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal

permanent residents in the san francisco since 2013 we started reaching the san francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand people into through 22 working groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in san francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. >> we think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in san francisco that are eligible for citizenship but totally lack information and they don't have trained professionals culturally appropriate with an audience you're working with one time of providing services with pro bono

lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of questions to see if they have met the 56 year residents arrangement or they're a u.s. citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see lawyers to check am i eligible to be a citizen we send them to station 3 that's when they sit down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a

packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass two or three a months maximum get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i mean there are tons of community resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other community services and benefits there's an economic and safety public benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with

the network no objection over $3 million in income for those but more importantly the city saves money $86 million by reducing the benefit costs. >> thank you. >> i've been here a loventh i already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good. >> one day - i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it

stands, for liberty and justice for all. >> you're welcome. >> (singing). >> (clapping.) >> introduce the san francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating. >> citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this difficult examine and after two trials they come back i'm an american now we're proud of that

purpose of evasion so help me god please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> she wants to be part of the country and vote so much puppy. >> you know excited and as i said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i see myself being part of. >> out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of

community in that way i can do so many things but my voice wouldn't count as it counts now. >> it's everybody i hoped for a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself there's a good life for everyone. >> that's why. >> you have people from all the walks that life and they're standing in water 8 hours to be an american citizen and contribute to the city and that's really what makes this

worthwhile. >> ♪ ♪

>> at the end to interfere with the equipment in the room and please join me in the pledge of allegiance. stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> commissioner president turman i'd like to call roll. >> commissioner president turman commissioner mazzuco commissioner marshall commissioner dejesus excused commissioner melara commissioner hing commissioner president turman we have quorum also with use it