extremely valuable contribution to the neighborhood address san francisco as a whole. >> the building will allow is to have greater very much and serve the city and county of san francisco and the neighboring [gavel] >> good evening and welcome to the readily scheduled meeting of the san francisco ethics commission for october 23rd, 2017. we'll call the roll and commissioner renne.

>> present. >> vice chair chiu. >> present. >> commissioner kopp. >> here. >> commissioner lee. >> here. >> all right, everyone is here, so let's go to public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. agenda. yes. go ahead and just in order. >> hi, i'm [inaudible] i wanted to add something on behalf of mr. bush for the record, he wanted me to read the editorial that appeared in the chronicle regarding the last meeting when the commission decided not to send the measure to the board of supervisors pending further work. the editorial was titled osf ethics board fays to tackle money and politics." it appeared september 27th in the

conical. it -- chronicle. it realdz they had a chance to pass a common sense measure to curtail money and politics. it failed. it would have banned the practice of allowing political donors to contribute to the charitable causes of favorable candidates when they have a land decision in front of city officials. such arrangements are common place and stink to high heaven. as critics of the practice which is a problem in state government too have noted deep pockets -- deep pocketed donors seeking to curry favor with san francisco owe if i canner efficientlies have delivered contributions to hospitals and charities. they may have pet causes, but just because the practice is chair doesn't

make it acceptable. people seeks political favors shouldn't be allowed to steer money towards politicians favored causes. my concern is undue influence which could lead to corruption of quentin kopp who voted for the ordinance. kopp add the he has no ill will towards charities, a major beneficiary behested country abuses not necessarily from nonprofit organizations but corporations has been major lee. kopp said the practice is unseemly unquote. critics charged that the ordinance private right of action which allows anyone to bring civil suit against organizations allegedly violating campaign finance laws will lead to frivolous lawsuits. but an elected city attorney might

be hesitant to pursue these kinds of claims. i'll quit here because of the interest of time. i wanted to say that i was pleased to see this editorial appearing. i think it's premature and we have time to go before we see the final outcome on our measure. but i did want to call the public's attention to this editorial in case they missed it in the paper since we are on television, i thought we'd take that opportunity tonight, thank you. >> mr. chairman. >> yes, commissioner -- >> i propose those public comments, mr. [inaudible] the title of the editorial was "grieving to sf ethics board fails to tackle money in politics." that's an indictment! i'll have to retain the chairman to

represent me pro bono. >> i'll do it. all eyei'll put on my public defender commissioner kopp. mr. is also, i have it in front of -- i have it in nont of me too. there are a couple more paragraphs that are important to fill out what we did last week. that talks -- they say the ordinance will likely will appear before the commission again. unless something changes, it's likely to face another uphill battle. the board of supervisors could pass a ban on the practice and mayor sign it. yet politicians have a difficult time to enacting new laws to limit their donors in this way. sadly, it's easy to understand why. what is more difficult to understand is why san francisco's ethics commission

won't do their job. that's the editorial. >> good afternoon i'm phyllis goog and i'm here representing midtown park apartments. we were built with urban renewal in 19268. we're coming to you for an investigation regarding doug sheu you schumacher. our master lease was broken by olsen lee who was at that time the mayor's office of housing. once the lease was broken, lee, and schumacher who used to be the president or director of the mayor's office of housing formed a sweetheart deal. olsen lee gave the mercy housing our lease. property manager and developer for

midtown park apartments. since that has happened we've been strong armed into sign our rights away and we've been no heat, but we want an investigation on the fact our lease was broken illegally and given to mercy housing with no talking to the tenants and residents. we've been part of the decision making along with the board of supervisors and mayors office of housing for over 50 years. right now we have no power or say-so. when we got supporters, one of the biggest was the labor council. the labor council put together a resolution a year ago stating that they were watching mercy housing so they were transparent. they have not been transparent. last week it was announced they're planning to demolish all six of our buildings.

the majority of the tenants at midtown park have been there for 40 years. i've been there 20 years. some hold vouchers given to them after herman demolished it. the resolution in 2017 signed by ever -- 2007 signed by every member of the board of supervisors plus the mayor states that midtown park apartments is for ownership, the residents are to have ownership and it should be a decision disition made between the mayors office -- decision mailed between the mayor's office of housing and the residents of midtown park. the problem is we have no say so. we'd like an investigation into the doings between the mayor's office of housing and mercy housing. specifically olsen lee's signing -- cancelling our lease illegally and

giving it to doug schumacher and giving him the property manager and developer in which we've been abused and a lot of people have died and moved. does that mean i'm done? >> i would invite you to talk to our staff about putting in an official complaint. >> we have done that. we were invited to come here and speak. >> good. all right. >> we'll probably be on the agenda for the november meeting, but i wanted to come out and make you aware we need someone to take a look at what is going on. >> we appreciate your remashes. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name audrey lan a-u-d-r-e-y sption

o-u-n-g. i've been working with the si of san francisco. i work at human service agencies until division collection unit. i've been here for 10 years. i've been helping a lot of employees to receive equal treatment and better work environment. i've exercised my duties. on 2013 about four years ago, i was a witness to a harassment case about my own unit manager. a caucasian man who harassing another chinese-speaking coworker. i've been harassed, discriminated and retaliated by this union manager. the city have a chain of command policy. if i have a problem my direct supervisor should be the one to talk to me first.

i get along well with my direct supervisor, but this unit manager abused his power and position to harassing me continuously. on november 2015 i was assigned to another program to stay away from this unit manager harassment. on june 2017, i was assigned to the same unit manager. i told the human resource staff that this unit manager harassed me before. but human resources still assigned me back to the same unit manager. on august 28, 2017, this unit manager come to harass me again. now, my doctor asked me to take care of myself by taking time off to stay away from this unit manager. i love my job.

i want to work. i want to be reassigned to a different locationlocation to stay away from this unit manager who harassed me again and again. this unit manager should be reassigned to other locations away from me and my coworkers. please, you must educate the human resource staff that this white male unit manager allowed to continue to harass. thank you. this is my record for you to read. >> thank you very much. as i said, with the lady before if you haven't done so, talk to our staff to put in an official complaint in terms of what you expressed. okay? >> good afternoon ethic commissioner.

can my name is ellen z-h-o-u. i work as a psychiatric worker in the department of public health. i am a bargain team member for 1021. i'm here to support awdy oung who spoke to you before me and other employees who are afraid of come here today and afraid of being retaliated by management staff. audrey and i exercise our 1021 responsibilities and rights. we stood up and testified against corruption at the city services commissions. some people pay to get their jobs while other people are qualified on a hiring list but never have a chance to be hired. the system is for fair employment

and fair hiring practices. the department of human services director acknowledged the problems and complaints brought before him for the last six years. they agreed to create effective policies to include training for all management staff posting posters to make public the bribery and ex-portion. nothing has been done and we're not sure what to do audrey and myself and many other members and employees coming from different departments, we testify in this same room in december 2015, august 15, 2016 and december 18th, 2017. we testify about problems in the

departments. some people paid to be hired and retain their job and on going extortion. to this day, many januaryer toes expect to pay expensive gifts to their supervisors and managers for them to avoid unwanted problems. city attorney and deputy, i've been investigated. a lot of extortion since february of 2011. many of us stood up to collaborate with the attorney and fbi agents. but the people who stood up have been harassed, discriminated and bullied by many of the h.r. staff. i my kef myself have been bullied and harassed since i exposed them. as you heard from audrey today, the

situation is many of the problems within the departments. discriminating bullying, retaliated the people of color asian people, chinese people and people who are vulnerable to the population that management staff took advantage of them. i myself am a therapist. i took the time and stood up. i know it's the right thing to do. that's why we have the ethic commission. that's why we have the whistle blowers and we have the departments. somehow it's not the way we experience. i'm here to ask you today to investigate the many complaints we've filed with different departments including mickey callahan, seussen susan guard department of public health, depth of human services.

human services oversees 30,000 employees. the union mass 6 o thousand members. we have occasion member meetings and know those problems do exist today. in a fair and good government practices is for fair for everybody who takes the exam who is qualified for the job, not because they know some management to pay the job. they pay 202,000 and up to 10,000 for the job. many people are being hassed. i'm ellen. i work for the department of public health. i am a bargaining team member working with management to improve. they said a lot of things but we're not seeing the improvement. to this day no posters. for the purpose of record, i'm giving you my record of what i said today. i appreciate you guys take the time to volunteer for our city. i myself am working for the city.

i'm proud of our city to provide diversity services to many citizens and undocumented citizens. we need people to be on board especially to hold people accountable for what they do i'd encourage you to work with miss lamb also -- miss lam also in regard to the complaints. >> commissioners, i have followed every step of the day to exercise seiu 1021 with the department of public health and human services. >> in our department. >> we file complaints already. but it take time. i know in the past, every time when we have a problem and something happens and it dies out and it's not acceptable. >> do we have jurisdiction -- >> i don't know, that's why i'd like to see it set out in a complaint in order

to make determinations. just a second ma'am. because they're talking about serious stuff. if it is within our purview, then we certainly would like to do something but we have to see the complaint. that is essential essential. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i wanted to make a brief comment in response of the "san francisco chronicle" editorial. i believe editorial has been an extremely oversimplified opinion piece on a complex piece of legislation. there are a lot of questions about the broad ban that is proposed by this piece of legislation. and to simply say ban behested payments doesn't even begin to cover the concerns we have. for the record, i want it to be known

to my knowledge, the chronicle did not reach out to any of the people who have expressed concerns about any aspects of this legislation. it is extremely one-sided and without the kind of detailed an thoughtful analysis that we'd love to see from a local newspaper and we hope that thattal is remedied as this legislation begins to move forward. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners i'm with san francisco open government. on a point of order, i want to notice that although i've been on the interested parties list for six years, i did not receive notification by e-mail that my hearing was today until 3:38 this afternoon it was sent out. my agenda packet was mailed out on friday and i received it sometime

after 3:00 p.m. this afternoon. i have to wonder whether you were just hoping i would be fooled and not show up or if i did show up, i would be unprepared. that's what i'm used to from the ethics commission. i had sincerely hoped the executive director pell ham would pelham would be a new start but i feel she's cut from the same bolt of cloth as john st. kroi. croix. mark twain says supporting your government when he deserve it. kapper knack i believe has earned the presidential medal of freedom. certainly not under this administration but kneeling during the national anthem is not disrespectful to the flag, to the

anthem or to the country. it is the exercise of a right enshrined in the first amendment. is-- it is a signof respect for the constitution. some of his loudest critics, and there are many who wish to infringe upon his right of free speech should remain that the same short paragraph regarding free speech supports their right to worship. the next short paragraph protects their right to bear arms. it's amazing how many people' you don't have the right to do this and then demand that their rights under the same document be respected. the final words ever the national anthem are -- of the national anthem are "land of free, home of the brave" colin capper kapper kohl

kaperkn ack is free to express his opinions. think of what he sacrificed and acknowledged his act as a sign of respect belief, trust, and hope. in the flag, in the constitution in our country and more than anything, in us to respect all of those. >> good evening, commissioners, thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak. i'm trevor martin i'm the treasure for san francisco for democracy. and i am speaking in favor of prop j

restoration and any other anticorruption measures that come before this body because that's exactly what it is, it's corruption. i've been a volunteer for california clean money campaign for a number of years. we tirelessly worked for passing the closedisclose act. it didn't have the teeth we wanted it to do. it doesn't touch candidates. the focus is specifically on ballot measures. but-machine the corruption shows in the city. and it shows when you walk around the streets and people -- we have a housing affordability crisis and it's because of the play-to-play politics. i was at the mid -- save midtown meeting last week.

i didn't know they were going to be here to speak, but you should have been there. what they're trying to do to these people, discourage the people who have been there for decades. it paid off their mortgage in 2007 and now they're told they owe them $37 million. it's completely -- i mean, we should look into what these people are being put through. i was there and doug schumacher walked right out before he left the mayor's office of housing he gave mercy five contracts. he walked straight out of mo and went straight into mercy with five contracts. that is blatant corruption in my opinion. now they're trying to displace these people. they said that they were waiting for them to die. it was horrible! you should have been there and seen

the compassion and response of the residents in the building. it's happening all over the city. we're displacing people of color, we're displacing those with less means to make a living. they're living in the streets and now we sweep them off the streets with horrible propositions being passed and paid by corporations to our elected officials. it has to stop please. and colin kaepernick is a hero. he does not respect the flag, anthem or american troops and you know it. >> thank you. any other members of the public who wish to speak? if not, we'll then move to item number three, discussion of possible action on draft minutes for the commission

september 25th, 2017 regular meth meeting. commissioner. >> i have one change bottom of page 2. motion by commissioner renne. i seconded it. there is a language difficulty, it says "seconded to be approved." to the ordinance. i'd cheang it "to approve the proposed order -- i'd change it to "approve the proposed order as mannedded by me." >> any addition or changes to the minutes by the commission? public comment on the minutes? >> nice to be back. i missed several meetings. just looking at the minutes, it appears

to me they're briefer than in the past. i don't know if there was a change in the practice of how things are captured, but they appear to be brief. there were a number of speakers under public comment for item four that aren't listed on page one as others present at the meeting. also on item two i was not at this meeting, but i suspect that was douglas yep spoke regarding the work of joe lynn. i expect he was discussing joe lynn -- l-y-n-n perhaps that can be incorporated. >> i'll move that change. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. any further public comment on the minutes? with those additions all those in favor of adopting the minutes, please say

aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? the minutes are adopted unanimously. item number four, discussion and possible action regarding proposed amendments to the ethics commissions bylaws to change the date and start time of the commission's reb monthly meeting. -- regular monthly meeting with an attachment of august 18th with a 2017 stamped memorandum and attachments. miss pelham. >> good evening, commissioners. this item is being provided in response to a request. i understand that commissioner lee initiated last month that the commission consider looking at an earlier time for its meeting start time. we provided background in this memo noting that it would require a bylaws change and require us to look for

availability here in city hall. based on that, we have proposed information here for you if you'd like to consider an alternative meeting time. the bylaws currently require the commission to meet on the fourth monday of each month at 5:30 p.m. in this room. a change could be accomplished by a vote at a meet at which the proposed change has been noticed for 10 day. there would not be a vote tonight, but we wanted to get it to you for your policy direction as to possibly scheduling it for an action at your next meeting. if you are interested in changing the meeting time as shown in the report. based on room availability also nowr bylaws, the commission is required to have televised meetings. with that prewe prerecollect kit, we identified that the second tuesday of each month at 10:00 a.m. in room 408 would accommodate that. so the commission would be able to

meet starting at 10:00 a.m. if that were your choice. if the commission wishes to pursue that we'd post notice of the proposed bylaw change for action at your next meeting. and then based on the commission's action at that time commission could adopt a regular meeting schedule for 2017. i wanted to present that information for you and if you have any questions or discussion, i leave it to the chair. >> commissioner renne. >> commissioner renne: i have one question if we start at 10:00, is there any sort of window that we would have the tellers available? or could we go all day if need be? >> i believe the availability is through 3:30 or 4:00. it would provide an extended period of time. this was a date that did not appear to conflict with any regular-scheduled board of supervisors committee meetings that we're wear of.

>> mr. chairman, through the chair to council or the executive director, can i make a motion to that effect today and have it carried to the november meeting? >> is there a second to the motion? >> second. >> chairperson keane: motion has been made and seconded. we'll carry that motion on in regard to further comment, i would say my own comment that is that i'm very much in favor of the change. think it makes a lot of sense to the public and for all of us in terms of having it during regular business times rather than going late into the evening on monday. i think we get a lot more people, it would be a lot better way of doing it. >> i'm not sure i understood what commissioner kopp's motion was. >> to adopt the new meeting schedule for tuesday at 10:00.

he made the motion and we're carrying the motion over to the next meeting. >> i certainly am in favor. >> i do agree that this should happen we should have more participation from the residents of the city. so i thank the staff for doing this. i wonder if this is the appropriate time since we're going it talk about proposed bylaw changes. ful i could make a motion for the staff to look at the possibility of changes the bylaws specifically one of the articles involving adding committees. this will is appropriate time? >> that might be more appropriate at the end when we talk about new business and new marypts. -- new business and new

matters. that would be appropriate then, commissioner. >> is there any public comment? >> chairperson keane: the motion again is going to be taken up next time. let's have public comment on our changing our meeting time. >> commissioner, director of san francisco open government. the library commission liebs to -- likes to do surveys on when the library is open. they asked the staff. i have a funny feeling this change is more for your convenience than the public. the san francisco board of supervisors doesn't want public comment because they schedule it so it could happen between any time between 2:30 and 9:00 at night. if a citizen wants to address the board of supervisors, they have to take an entire day off work and show up at 2:00 because they have no idea when that is. now we're going to propose doing it at 10:00 in the morning where most people

are working. how many citizens are going to have to take a day off work or arrange for child care or whatever to come here to talk to you. i don't believe -- have you made any outreach to the public to ask them if this change would be better and more people could arrive? i don't think so. i think it's going to be we're going to say that we think the public will like this because it's what you want do. the very frank -- and very frankly i think it's a disservice to the public because it won't only be hard for individuals to come but for supporters. it's going to be hard for 10 or 15 people who believe the same thing you do and want to speak to those things can take off work. most people can't afford to take off work for a day or use a vacation day to come to a meeting in the middle of the morning.

so i honestly really do not believe that this is anything -- i'll be honest with you one thing i've noticed in past 10 years of going to public meetings, i believe it is the duty and responsibility of commissions to actively solicit and allow the participation of citizens. yet, what i see in most boards and commissions is setting it up in a way that it discourages the public from coming. you don't have it take my word for it. look at the meetings. nobody shows up. i go tie library commission meeting. there are six members of the public and 35 members of the staff because it's to their convenience and not the public. you need to ask the public whether this change would benefit them or you don't care whether it benefits them and you would like to without saying so outloud set the example to them, we don't

really want your input so we're going to schedule it at a time when you probably will not be able to come. >> hello commissioners. i'd like to say that one of the very few -- can we get a name. >> david mahai. one of the things that i frequently converse with with my friends is how difficult it is to get involved in government and advocacy. for people in various geographies, they have similar problems involving around commissions being held around working hours for them and they're forced to take off work and make the trip to city hall or wherever the commission is held in order to participate. one of the things i could say proudly is that the ethics commission i work with meets after work so people could actually come without having to take

time off of work and their limited vacation. while i do appreciate trying to get a wider window where more things could be covered and more action to be taken i'd like to strongly suggest that you keep in mind a lot of people cannot make it here at 10:00 in the morning and a lot of people would like to come and have their issues heard. but moving it to a time that would be disadvantageous for a large segment of the public wouldn't bring about higher participation in my opinion. thank you for your time and service. >> thank you.v >> david [inaudible] four points for some reason the template for this particular item has commissioner chiu misspelled. there is an "i" missing there.

i agree with the new meeting time being disadvantageous to the public. they've always met in the evening so as to facilitate public involvement. and i think you could certainly try 10:00 a.m. on a tuesday, but i think that would result in less public participation, not more. two other points, unless it's changed recently, i'm not aware that room 408 provides for televising, i thought it was only rooms 400, and 416. i believe it was passed as an ordinance in the board of supervisors and governmental conduct code section 3 point whatever it is. you should be sure that room 408 can in fact televise the meetings.

finally, there was another point about youpublic involvement. um -- i'm sorry give me a moment. i'm missing it right now i apologize. anyway regardless you're not going to take final action tonight so we'll discuss this again at next moth's meeting prior to any conclusion on this in a setting of the 2018 meeting schedule. so i'll remember my thing for next time. >> chairperson keane: thank you. any further public comment on this item? okay. >> mr. chairman. >> chairperson keane: commissioner renne renne. >> commissioner renne: would it be inappropriate for me to ask the audience many of whom are general participants if they would be -- if

they feel they would be unable to attend these meetings if we change to the 10:00 time. >> chairperson keane: i think that's appropriate. all those who would be inconvenienced and couldn't do it, raise your hand and raise them high. three four, five -- nine people. in regard to those who would not be inconvenienced. a lot more people in the audience. so we just have -- raise them high so i can see them and count. we have a bunch of other people in the audience three of them are raising their hands. i guess the others have no opinion one way or the other. okay. so that's what we have. >> thank you.

>> i remembered the other point. the staff indicated there was no conflict with the board of supervisors, i believe they meet as the transportation authority on second tuesday either 10:00, 10:30 or 11:00 so there would be a conflict with the meeting. >> chairperson keane: thank you. okay. no further public comment on item four. we'll now go to eye five, discussion on sunshine referral of file 17048 ray harts versus angela covilleo. >> thank you chair. the staff memorandum essentially explains the process for how the commission will consider the task

force referral. i advise you turn it over to mr. harts. >> mr. harts, you have the floor. >> and i have three minutes to present a case? >> chairperson keane: sure. >> five minutes. >> thank you i knew three minutes was bizarre. >> chairperson keane: i thought you were asking for three minutes. >> no it said three minutes here now i've used -- okay. can we get the overhead. upten.-- upton sinclair said it's hard to get someone to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.

the sunshine task force has ruled 10 times that in the minutes which is the actual wording ever the sunshine ordinance applies to the 150 word summaries and in the minutes means "in the minutes" there has been literally since 2010 years of arguments where it said we can put them here and there and reference them and do all the other stuff. the task force has releet p peteedly -- repeeptedly ruled it must go in the plins because that's what the -- minutes because that's what the law says. as far as the city attorney's office, yes, they have recommended to -- they have made recommendations in the good government guide that it is already to place them somewhere else. but this letter submitted -- sent by the former chair of the sub sunshine task

force makes it clear and i think it presents the case very well. it says after careful deliberations of this issue over the past year, the task force does not find justification in the sunshine ordinance for your conclusions that the summaries may be attached to the minutes rather than included in the minutes or they're not part of the official minutes. several sections ever the ordinance demonstrate the intent to require the application of legal interpretations that result in greater public access to government. both your conclusions don't follow this intent and result in less open government. based on the purpose of the of the ordinance to maximize public access to public information and public meetings and evidence presented at multiple task force hearings. the task force behinds the interpretations most commonly understood by members of the public and those required to follow the sunshine ordinance resulting in the greater open government is the plain language of the

law. the task force interprets the phrase "included in the minutes" in section 6716 by using the plain meaning of the word and find thes the summary musting placed in body of minutes. they don't interpret it "in the minutes" to mean attached to the minutes and finds no justification for authorizing an attachment where no reference to the attachment is made. the task force finds the addendum is an attachment not3me part of the document and an addendum is not in the minutes as we choired by the ordinance. the task finds the ordinance states that the summary of 150 words or less must be in the minutes. is that requirement is not satisfied by a attaching statement as an addendum at the end of the minute.

please take note placing the comment summaries in the body of the minutes prevents public officials from bridging unwanted or critical public comment, a requirement under the ordinance. members of the public brought to some commissions that they place some summaries without directing readers to the item and it's been submitted -- that the summary has been splitted in reference to nearly ensuring -- submitted reference ensuring that he read only the summary of the comments as the commission prefers it to be interpreted. the task force notes other commissions placed a disclaimer on at attached summariessummaries that the summaries are not subject to approval of verification of accuracy by the commission. this may be perceived as placing an unwarranted negative bias on the summaries and it is a further erosion of the public's right guaranteed under

the ordinance that is condoned by your interpretation that being the city attorney of the section. in addition, these disclairms constitute an additional violence of the ordinance because it does not -- because the ordinance does not require commissions -- or does require them to include an accurate summary. there is also a memo mas that gone out to all city agencies back in 2012 stating that the sunshine ordinance has given this directive that is their job to interpret the ordinance, they have interpreted it and given advice to all city agencies that "in the minutes" means" in the minutes." but look at miss calvillo's -- [buzzer]

>> commissioners -- >> chairperson keane: i think we have a notion allow mr. harts to have as much reasonable time's wants. to present his case. without objection, that will be the order. >> if you look in your packet on page 63 for item 5, you'll see the clerk of the board's answer to this complaints. first, in the third paragraph says the brown act imposes no requirements on

policy bodied. we're not talking about the brown act, we're talking about the sunshine ordinance and that states 150 word summaries if they're submitted will be included in the minutes. they have the right under both the good government guide and the ordinance, if they're not accurate or reflect what the person said, they can be or if they're longer than 150 words, they can be refused and not one of mine in all these years has been. the next paragraph down ends with provide add attachment is an example of the minutes from june 18, 2013, board of supervisors. the subjects of one of the complaints made by the complainants indicates ts complainant's name in the body with the reference to the appendix. if you look at these, which are the public comment listingser about both of the minutes that are actually the subject of this particular thing, there is no reference to the addendum. it simply says ray harts spoke and

gives a one or two line statement as to what it is which is generic at best. 37 rewrites there the task force doesn't have the authority to amend the code and cannot add or imply the words "in the body of the minutes." they not. i did not ask them to. i said read the law. read what the law says and it says "in the minutes" period. it is the city attorney who advised people that you can add things to that which is, oh it's in the addendum. then they put on the argument, it's the same thing whether it's in the minutes or attached to the minutes, it's the same thing. if they feel it's the same thing, it shouldn't make any difference whatsoever

where it is. since it's my constitutionally protected free speech and it does make a difference to me, since it doesn't make a difference to them, why not put it where the law says it should be. on the second page of her response, she talks about all these different violations and says, the ethics commission heard this matter twice and rule both times that the respective body didn't violate the law. one of the hearings you heard against the library commission when you yourself had a violation still outstanding. if you could show that on the careen, you'll see there the public library started this whole thing. they were found in violation three times and the ethics commission was found in violation twice. how ethical is it to be holding a hearing against a city agency when

this body has been leld in violation for the same thing? i will point out in starting in january 2016 without any action by the library commission or this body, they stopped putting them as an addendum and started putting them in the body of the minuteses. misshow is it that the library complition, small business commission and this body can all put the 150 word summaries in the minutes and don't seem to have any problem carrying out their duties to do minutes? the city attorney has never, she uses the word "opined" he has not leushed a legal opinion. he put something in the good government guide which he's refused to answer. he's refuse fod give any legal

justification. all they do is say we think they can do what they want to do. and we don't think that is abridging mr. harts' first amendment rights. if this -- i would mention that miss cal calvillo never showed up for a task force. five complaints and a total of 15 hearings and she never did. she sent a dog body to answer. that person gave answers i don't know i don't understand, this is just what she told me to do. all of the other bodies have come in line and they put those including this body in the minutes and i have seen no detrimental result in doing that.

as those of you who are lawyers if you look at again the screen, it isn't just a matter of saying it's going to be difficult or this or that or other thing. when the first amendment provides among other things that government make no laws infringing the freedom of speech, under the first amendment, a statute or ordinance a speech based on content must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest in order to pass constitutional muster. i have gone before boards and imlitions including this one on multiple occasions and said, when i or any other citizens of the city including any of you stand before a board or commission they're exercising their rights under the first amendment of the constitution under the california constitution, under the brown act and in this case, the sunshine ordinance. it is constitutionally protected political free speech. the only reason that all of these bodies for years have fought my 150 word

summaries appearing in the minutes is they don't like my opinions. which under the brown act is the one basic thing that forbids sensorring someone. and i have argued many times that free speech is not just the ability to get up and talk, it's protected speech in that when it appears in a government publication in particular, such as minutes of the official record of any body it has that same level of constitutional protection. any other argument is specious and i have yet to hear anyone in owe or commission say to me mr. harts it's not constitutionally protected free speech. the reason being it is. >> chairperson keane: mr. harts. would you wrap it up, please, you've had plenty of time.

>> what i find particularly a greeshes a egregious is that people who tell members of the public to use certain words are attorneys. people who have an intimate or knowledge of the constitutional law, and people's rights under the first amendment. telling people such as mr. petrellis holding up a sign that turned out to be dishonest or a lie is something this body has done. you don't like my opinions and you expressed that. think of your on records. mr. kopp doesn't like how often i talk or like the tone of my voice. none of which has anything to do with my.

>> i'd like to ask mr. hart a question. if the minutes said mr. harts under the subject matter where you submit your 150 word statement, if the minutes said mr. harts commented and presented a 150 word statement which is attached as exhibit a or b or c would that be all right? >> no. task force has ruled. it said clearly no. >> i'm not talking about what the task force said. >> i'm saying no. where it should appear is in the minutes. that's what the law should say. anything in the minutes appears in a regular position. you wouldn't take any other agenda item and place it as an addendum. public comment is in the agenda and should appear at the point in the minutes where the public comment was taken. >> i understand.

i think we had some communications with miss calvillo. >> yes, chair, thank you. she called miss pelham earlier today to apologize she wouldn't be able to make it tonight. that's our fault, we notified her as a courtesy late. the regular agenda went out on time but didn't send her the courtesy notification. she was okay with us proceeding without her and directed us to rely on the letter she submitted to the commission which appears on page 63 of the packet. >> were you trying to prevent her from appearing? >> no. >> mr. chairman -- >> commissioner kopp -- >> through the chair to mr. chen, there was distributed this may 18, 2012

memorandum all city departments from the sunshine ordinance task force, it refers to the office of the city attorney in this way task force disagrees with the office of the city attorney's interpretation for requirements of summaries and meeting minutes. have you you being the office, issued a written opinion on the subject matter? >> our advice on this issue is contained in the good government guide which is referenced. >> does the brown act require that will the local government body accepts to be reproduced within the minutes? >> no that