discuss it further and make a decision about whether or not we want to change the procedure as commissioner hur indicated. so, it might make a note about that. i have a different view and i am not sure that i understand commissioner's keane's concerns, because this stimulation lays out the factses and it is a public document. and the public can read it and all that we are being asked is to say that we concur with the findings that have been set forth here, and if we were to, if we, if there is a question about accepting the facts, as i understand it, that would have to be done under california law, under a private hearing,

. >> commissioner hur? >> here. >> commissioner keen, n >> here. >> are there matters that we are going to be discussing or do not appear on the agenda at this time? >> good evening commissioners my name is dr. derek kur a whistle blower, please note bill 496 that took effect this month has expanded protections for whistle blowers and it prohibits anticipation retaliation, whereby the employers retaliate because they believe that an employee may disclose information to authorities. it reminds us that retaliation sometimes proceeds the actual whiesle blowing, the employee finds information, collects it, and then gets a layoff before they can file the complaint. i would also like to acknowledge your unprecedented finding of a conflict of interest by a city official, even though she happens to be a good person. previously, such complaints were routinely dismissed and complainants were thrown under the bus, it took you over two years to adjudicate our complaint former health director dr. mitch cats, for two year

. >> commissioner hur? >> here? >> commissioner liu? >> here. >> all members being present, first item on the agenda is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on matters of the ethics commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners and of course, stop the corporate rate of the public library and don't accept money from the friends of the library. you may remember that rights were violated on june 4th, 2009. you made a finding that she was guilty of official misconduct and made a reference to the mayor that the mayor should consider terminating her appointment on july 12th, 2011. you followed up with a direct request to the mayor, that he respond to you in some -- with some sort of explanation on september 24th, 2012. i followed that up with an immediate disclosure request to the mayor on december 3rd, requesting any documents reflecting any internal consideration or any possible -- any documents indicating a response to your follow-up letter. what i received was an email that a constituent of supervisor kim, named andrew adam

. >> commissioner hur? >> here? >> commissioner liu? >> here. >> all members being present, first item on the agenda is public comment on

. >> commissioner hur, i know you just want me to go away quietly. >> mr. met shaw, if i wanted you to go away quietly, i'm sure i wouldn't have given you the opportunities to speak and present papers and review and delay, so we could fully hear your argument and understand them. i hope at a minimum, you feel that i have given you an opportunity. >> can the ethics commission that speaks the english language tell me how miriam webster's definition of "willful" has not happened? this case has dragged on for two years? before it got her it was willful foot-dragging while winding its way through sotf. as far as i'm concerned you are foot-dragging in agendizing my complaint almost a year after it was referred from sotf. that you are foot-dragging was also willful. you could have scheduled a special meeting to move things along. it's willful that mr. st. croix and his staff, his deputy director, the entire ethics commission, i mean ethics department staff, more than likely had access to that file. they knew what was in that file. withholding it under misguided in

. >> commissioner hur is excused, as is vice chair renne, he is also excused. commissioner andrews. >> here. >> and with that we have a quorum and we will proceed with the day's business. is there any public comment. are there any matters before we move ahead on the agenda? >> first up, the discussion and possible action on draft amendment, to the sunshine ordinance regulation 67.33-1 director st croix. >> expanding the number of ways that folks that have to file the sunshine ordinance declarations and the state ethics declarations currently they have to be filed at the office in paper fork. we are expanding this to allow them to send fax or e-mail or regular mail in order to safety that obligation and this will make it easier for folks to file those forms on a timely basis. additionally, we are authorizing the commission to set up a format for all electronic filing in the future. we don't have a platform for the electronic filing for these two forms yet. but we plan to at some point. as we generally are moving toward all electronic filing for the things that we

very strange if nothing else and so here, i'm not troubled by the penalty, as is my colleague commissioner hur, i mean, the fine, and the 5,000, and to me that is, negligible compared with the findings of guilt official misconduct and disgrace, we are saying that you did a lot of bad things here, ma'am. and i don't know how you, and we had members of the public saying that she is just going to tap dance away from this, and nothing is going to come as a result of it. there is no way, after we make findings like this in conjunction with the fppc, that, a governmental agency, is just going to say, well, we could get a problem, but it is over. >> we will go back to work and by the way you are due for a raise. that not going to happen and if that does happen, i would be the first one to complaint about it. and so in that regard, here, i see we as an agency, our staff has done a good job and in terms of it, i would defer to their findings related to things like credibility, and whether or not they are saw intent and deliberations and stuff like that, they were there, and they interviewed the witness

>> commissioners, any further comments from you before we move toward making a decision on this? >> mr. hur? >> could i just for purposes of my own understanding, did the staff believe that it was that there was an absence of an intent to deceive here? >> yes? >> yes. >> and did the staff believe that this was inad inadvertent, specifically look the at c. >> yes. >> had the staff determined that it was deliberate? what do you think the range of penalty recommendations would have been? >> much higher. i don't know. i can't give you an amount. >> okay. >> mr. st. croix, i had asked you this at one time, but if you could refresh my memory, does this commission have the authority to recommend that a person be in a case like this be removed from their position? >> that is not one of ours. >> there is nothing spelled out in the statute or in the charter, that gives us the authority over that kind of thing for this level. i am not being an elected official or a board member or a department head. it is beyond the scope of ours. ultimately, if the commission determines that they want to communicate