i know that we actually previously had recommended bruce wolfe to the full board and i was one of the members who supported bruce. there was concern i had with the sunshine task force around the city charter and some violations that were made but bruce was one individual that i thought was very committed to making reforms that were necessary to follow the city charter and i also believe has a strong commitment to sunshine and i will continue to support bruce wolfe as our appointee to the sunshine task force. i do want to thank both ms. simon and ms. forsley for your interest to serve. i think that there are a number of different committees and task force that your background would ideally suit and it seems there's more of a general interest to serve in any capacity, more than just specifically the sunshine task force itself. i know in mr. wolfe's circumstances he is specifically interested in sunshine and transparency and open government and for that reason i would like to support him as well. i want to recognize supervisor farrell's comments though regarding the fact that -- (no audi

i've known bruce wolfe for eight of those years. of a different course here. i don't think that this hearing is a place to use for any side to accuse any other side of misdealing, or playing games, or, you know, he said, she said. i think this hearing's a place to decide on who the best person is to next seat on this body. i've watched bruce wolfe in action many times and i'm not exaggerating. he is the most honest, direct, and straightforward person i have ever witnessed in action in this building. that is not an exaggeration. i've even seen him when -- in meetings with solely progressives, admonish other progressives to be careful not to steer clear -- steer away from ethics and sunshine rules. he doesn't play favorites on this stuff. he puts the hammer down on everybody. and most importantly, the internet is becoming a big deal. bruce and i have worked together before in campaigns. and one of them was internet democracy. so not only does he have a deep understanding of the tech issues, but has a deep understanding of what it mean

move forward bruce wolfe to -- with a positive recommendation to the full board is because i have actually gone to task force meetings, and i do believe that bruce wolfe has played a really important role, and can play and needs to continue to play a very important role in that task force. i actually think that you're not going to find a more thoughtful, prepared, and well-informed member of that task force. and even though mr. wolfe may have a respect perspective on a specific issue, i do believe that he is the kind of individual that goes out of his way to listen to the other side, and to take the other side -- the other perspective into consideration. i have seen that time and time again. and i actually was present at the last task force meeting that took place, the first meeting

. >> clerk calvillo: item 27 is a motion appointing bruce wolfe term ending april 27, 2013 to the sunshine ordinance task force. >> president chiu: roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: on item 27, president chiu, no. supervisor chu, no. supervisor cohen, no. supervisor elsbernd, no. supervisor farrell, no. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, no. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. >> clerk calvillo: there are five ayes and six nos. >> president chiu: motion fails. can we go back to item 15, colleagues. supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. we passed the item and did not vote on the motion to amend that was before the board so i move to rescind the vote to adopt the amendment, and then we can proceed to a vote as amended. >> president chiu: first of all on the motion to rescind is there a second? seconded by supervisor campos. can edo that without objection? the vote is rescinded. and then supervisor wiener's made a motion to amend. there is a second? seconded by supervisor chu. colleagues if we can do t

by the way i am bruce wolf from the past vice chair of the sunshine ordinance task force. i want to draw your attention to items 6 and 7 on your agenda. regarding the closed session. i believe they are posted incorrectly. and quote and refer to the brown act. that's the basis of the sunshine ordinance. you have the opportunity to meet in closed session to meet with legal counsel to sddetermine if you should meet in further closed session if you are party to particular litigation. but you must state on the agenda what the item is about. and the charter cannot trump that. so i have listed the items of the statutes of the brown act in order based upon on the order stated in the agenda. in item 6, it's 54956 -- sorry, starting in 7, it's 54957.1. and the sheet i printed up is in bold, prior to holding any closed session the item to be held in closed session. no. 6 probably won't be covered, you will be talking with your attorney whether or not you are in litigation. and further down in the next session because it refers to 57957.1. in the first sentence... and to enter as amic

my name is bruce wolfe i served on the sunshine task force 2005 with one year hiatus.terested in it because of various issues surrounding city college at the time. and just in general, i think it's a great idea that we all, you know, have some oversight and some look-see at transparency and making sure that the public and the city family has their just due in making sure everything is clean, and moves forward smoothly. i have pretty extensive research and background in studying constitutional law, and in construction, and in these areas. and i really enjoy serving on it. it's not a political position for me. i enjoy being there. i have no aspirations of moving in anywhere else. and really that's about it. i'll be open to any questions. i want to say one last thing. considering what the past issues have been around my appointment, i just want to say that i've -- you know, in hindsight, it would have been probably much better if not just me, but maybe other members of the task force, also we agreed to bring some of these issues forward to you much more ahead of time, so

. >> bruce wolf. i just want to, start by saying that most of us here are here to help. and make this work. a lot of us on the task force want to offer suggestions as to how we see things to be either appropriate or better or whatever. so at first i think it's important to separate 6730-c from 6734. the willful failure meaning misconduct. that's completely within your jurisdiction. you deal with it in the way you deal with official misconduct cases. that's something that the task force has no bearing over. but under 6730-c, it's specific for remedies and enforcement only. and not rejudeicatiadjudicate ar the task force did what they did properly. and that's got to be assumed. it has its own legal counsel and it has two attorneys that sit on the body. and also has legal counsel from the attorney's office. you have to consider that what is deemed as a determination is true. and it's asking for you to provide the enforcement for that. that's a two-fold aspect. the first as commissioner remnn and studley pointed out, to get them to do what they were supposed to do. they had

it's clear that you vindictively removed bruce wolfe and the other members because you were unhappy about the referral to ethics for your own misconduct. it should teach you a lesson not to engage in official misconduct, and you should have learned your lesson from parkmerced that you should not have introduced today just prior to your vote, amendments on any other matter just minutes before you vote on them. >> members of the board of supervisors, ray hartz, director of san francisco open government. i want to agree wholeheartedly with mr. james chaffee's earlier comments relating to the friends of the san francisco public library. i spoke about this issue last week and i want to mention three particular issues. one was that city librarian luis herrera used his position to withhold public records he knew were fully disclosable under the sunshine ordinance and california records act. i was curious as to what you think of that. >> the second item was that the library commission and the librarian and the chief financial officer of the library are presenting numbers, including a particular 5

. >> good evening, bruce wolf. two commissionary studley's question. we went over this in the april meeting. it was clear in the ordinance that there are two ways, pathways that the task force can ask for enforcement. one is through the willful failure misconduct path. and the other path it can choose any other appropriate entity, city agency or what have you, to provide enforcement. but to your additional question with regards to supervisor of records, in 6721-d, it states that the -- if the custodian refuses or failed to comply, the supervisor of record shall notify the district of attorney or general to be sure they ensure compliance with the provisions of the ordinance. it's a shall. and specific only to public records disclosure. that's in the ordinance and has been in the ordinance. but the task force, that's for the supervisor of records. for the task force it has the additional ability to take it to any other body that would be appropriate. thank you. >> david pellpal. i already spoke, and i want to point out there are two items "l" in the defi