she -- and the documents that she provided in her brief all related to her request for those documents. we went to extraordinary steps to get those documents to her, waiving the requirement that we make copies and actually giving her our copies, because that would have reduced the time to reproduce it. we also had documents, that she requested messengered t

she -- and the documents that she provided in her brief all related to her request for those documents. we went to extraordinary steps to get those documents to her, waiving the requirement that we make copies and actually giving her our copies, because that would have reduced the time to reproduce it. we also had documents, that she requested messengered to her home. we have six sunshine requests from her affecting hundreds of pages of documents. we continued to make them available to her as soon as we could. and as fast a turn around as we could. the one that she requested and was given to her on august 22, i can only assume was something that she requested within the week prior, because we did our best to turn around and make everything we could available to her as quickly as possible. everything that she had requested prior to the hearing was made available. prior to her brief was made available to her before her brief. all of the documentation regarding, you know, our attempts to contact her, his when documents were available, was included in my response, as an exhibit. >> preside

>> none. >> in legal documents? >> none. >> there really were no requirements for the job. >> correct. >> you had to be able to hold a pen. >> hold a pen. >> but you were signing these documents as if you were an officer of the bank. >> correct. >> how many banks were you vice president of in a given day? >> i would guess somewhere around five to six. >> what were you getting paid for this? >> [chuckles] i'm embarrassed to say. $10 an hour. >> $10 an hour, that's not much for a guy who's vice president of five banks. >> yeah, i was very underpaid for my status in the companies. >> pendley showed us how he signed mortgage documents as linda green. he told us that docx employees had to sign at least 350 an hour. pendley estimates that he alone did 4,000 a day. >> [laughs] >> this is also linda green. shawanna crite worked at docx and says that she both signed and notarized the mortgage documents. what was the role of the notary? >> we were to make sure that everyone on the document was who they said they were and nota

views on the written document? what you said it was sort of a draft for a pull of the board, her the commission. four of us seemed to agree that there was a violation of the official misconduct. going to the charging document, looking at it and wondering which one of the charges for which one of the charges are we so stating. -- are we sustaining? some of which included the impeding witnesses and things of that nature that we think have found there was not sufficient evidence. it seems to me that we have to have, in fairness to the share of and in fairness to the board, some clear statement of the charge that we say we are sustaining. going through the charges, 1-6. there are a number of them, certainly towns to have a 3. we have said we did not think that there was sufficient evidence. and the others, as i say, they are sort of mingling. many of the factual statements we have rejected. whereas i was suggesting that i believe that the conviction and the circumstances that led up to ahead is what is the official mis

croix i was not able to read the documents of this meeting. but i wasn't able to read the minutes of mirkarimi hearing previous to those five through 10 or 12. anyway, thank you. >> hope johnson. i have two -- first i want to say it would, i understand it's been a long time that these have been, since these have been reviewed. but it would be nice if the task force cannot discuss these with each other. without having a meeting. because otherwise it's an illegal meeting. i would urge you to wait for them to have one meeting. so they could have one legal conversation about it. but in light of you not doing that, if you are not going to do that. my two comments on these are in section 2, item g, complaint. a task force referral it's a lot bit of mischaracterization to call that a complaint. it's a request for enforcement or a request for a show-cause hearing. not a complaint. it was a complaint when it was brought to the task force. that section also does not provide. i believe someone mentioned this, but i will say it again, it does not provide

where we hashed out the structure of this document. and i think this document is certainly meant to reflect what came out of those discussions. the notion that the task force hasn't had input into this i think is inaccurate. the task force at the time, which was a very experienced group, was an equal participant in putting this together. i appreciate the efforts of the task force in that regard. and see familiar faces from that meeting, and am glad you are here. like mr. st. croix said there are a number of decision points. and it makes sense to handle them in six segments. i appreciate the concern that with 36 decision points we are not able to handle them one at a time. i do have some comments on the first section. >> mrs. studley. >> i have two questions across the decision point and then a comment about the timing. this is a very practical implementation type of question. but i think it slices across a number of these. if an elected official or department head and also an employee who is not a department head are respondents in a m

the idea of what this document should look like, am i right?omething that outlined what it might consist of. and you can give him some guidelines on that and when you have the opportunity to begin drafting, you can proceed. if that makes sense to you. and as a commission, we can approve the document without delaying the proceedings at whatever meeting is set up for us to do so. >> i have no objection to that. we can schedule it, and i think we should prepare some sort of summary document. i will work with them to put it together by the commission at large. any objection to that procedure? ok. i think unless there is anything else, are we prepared to make the motion for our recommendation to the board? is there a motion to sustain the charges relating to the physical abuse for the reasons that we discussed here today? secondly, to adopt all of the interim ruling is that had been made throughout the proceedings and to authorize the preparation of a summary document of the findings made by the commission to be subsequently ratified by the commissi

the word complaint runs through this document. i am concerned because a complaint is fundamentally different from a sunshine referral or order of determination. by mixing all the terms up we lose exattitude that will come in handy at some point. and also by declaiming a complaint by order of determination, you are treating a citizen complaint the same way as the careful deliberations of the sunshine task force. it doesn't make sense to me. and keeping the word complaint in this. because that's how the document was drafted and it will disrupt some paragraphs. i don't see that as a sufficiently strong argument to keep them mixed together. my second point is where, the sunshine task force is a mutual review body. and to connect them with the complainant or respondent compromises their position. they should not represent anyone but their conclusion. thank you. >> i have three points that come to my mind. number one is the whole issue again of complaint referral. i have been at the sunshine hearings, and all of you need to go and pay a

he says, well, why don't you release some fast and furious documents, and then we'll talk. and the truth is, like i mentioned, out of 40,000 -- 240,000 documents they've released 7,000, most of which look like this. i'll give you a little preview. they look like this, and this is what they expect you to think is the truth. out of the 7,000 documents, you know, a lot of the redactions include redacting upcoming policy initiatives which is not something that you should be redacting. in fact, that's something at a very low level taxpayers should know about because they'll do be paying for the it, and it will effect them. and then, of course, you had the contempt charges with where chairman of the oversight committee darrell issa kept saying all you have to do is turn over 300 documents $1300 documents out of the 240,000 that exist, and we'll stop the contempt vote from going forward, we'll continue with our investigation, but we'll see that as cooperation. they showed up to a the last-minute meeting with 30 documents, decided not to turn them over. they proceeded with contempt

the language in the document is not the same.it says sustain the charges of official misconduct, et cetera. >> i mean, it is substantively the same. what is the substantive difference in your mind? the only difference is that we added what was certainly implied in the motion that it's charges of official misconduct. rather than charges as to the conduct. i mean, look, if the majority wants to change that to the exact language of the motion, i guess i have no problem. this just seemed clear as to what you all really did. but i leave it to you . >> well, i don't believe that the board ever -- excuse me, the commission ever actually took a vote and said we're going to sustain counts 4 and 5. we find there was official misconduct as reflected in counts 4 and 5, which is not the same thing. >> well, what is in the order right now is the "as reflected" language. so you still have your argument. so i don't think you want language that weakens your position here. >> i agree. thank you. and if i may now address the issue of mr. hemblig re

all of the documentation regarding, you know, our attempts to contact her, his when documents were available, was included in my response, as an exhibit. >> president hwang: thank you. mr. snyder. >> good evening. dan snyder with the planning department. our feeling, commissioners, is that there is no new information at all in this matter, much less information that will be suggestive of a rehearing. the appellant does ask the board to revisit what appear to be five separate issues. what i'd like to do is run through those quickly and i'll sit back down again. the first issue is that the appellant continues to allege that the -- work for this permit was not clearly defined. in fact, the scope remains exactly as it has since prior to your august hearing. this fact is acknowledged on i believe page 2 of the appellant's brief. secondly the appellant alleges there is new work on the site without permit. this allegation appears to stem from a potential misunderstanding, again of information available prior to your august hearing. even if this wasn't the case, work without permit would be subject

this document knows no

is an order that the documents be produced. if they fail to comply with it, i guess they have to go to a court to get some citation. i mean that's the most we can do. but to order them to produce the records. and if we are going to impose, and we get to willful, it may be different. if we find that a fine is appropriate and we have the power, i don't know why the fine shouldn't be paid by the individual who failed to comply? >> i too have questions about the monetary penalty. in part because i am not sure we can do it in regulations. >> two points, and i apologize. i think some issues have come up in prior meetings on the subject. in terms of potentially penalizing a city employee. that was an early regulation of the strat regulations. and the issue in that respect, if that were a possibility. we would certain meet and confer obligations with the effective employee's unions. and the legislation has done meet and confer before. and it's not necessarily a barrier we couldn't overcome. but i wanted to mention that procedurally. in

we learned that today when hundreds of pages of documents were released in court. barry petersen is at the courthouse in centennial, islorado, tonight. barry? >> reporter: well, scott, media organizations, including cbs news, had argued that corporate documents in this case should be made public. a judge agreed, but first he allowed attorneys on both sides to cross out any information they felt might jeopardize a fair trial. most of the documents released today look like this-- with many blrds on each page blacked out. one document was filed by prosecutors trying to gain access to communication between nilmes and his then-psychiatrist university of colorado's dr. lynne fenton. toosecutors allege about five weeks before the movie shooting fothreat was made by holmes owards blank. here the name of the professor is blacked out or, in legal terms, redacted. the document says the unnamed professor then terminated their relationship with holmes and heported the threat to niversity of colorado campus police. amosecutors say the school then banned holmes from the campus. i

and have been documents available. and thanks very much an immediate disclosure we sent was promptly answered and provided through your office. and i appreciate that. but to not have that on your agenda is to violate the law. whereas to make it difficult for yourself and the public to know there are documents available at all. i did want to say something that i will mention briefly. that you are dealing with serious issues here. particularly in general with the sunshine ordinance and its enforcement. these are not just petty things that somebody didn't give someone a document [buzzer] these things are crimes against democracy itself. these are crimes against the whole way in which we expect our government to function. and for the press to function. and so these are very serious and should be considered very seriously. and in general if you hear what i say, i am in favor of strengthening rather than weakening sunshine. thank you. >> good evening, members of the commission and members of the community. both in this room

in general in this section, it largely turns on documents. [buzzer] and i note this is not 21-d or 21-e matter in the ordinance. it's a referral that is 30-c, when the task force has found anyone has violated any decision or act. it's a finding or mediation or something. but i don't know that taking this together that this body of law gives you the authority to order disclosure of records. or that you have the power to order anything that it's limited to record, and more broadly enforcement. let me conclude with a couple other things. >> you it turn it back on. >> the votes of three commissioners are required. what happens when you only have four commissioners present? does that mean that the matter dies? it doesn't address that and has a presumption built in there somewhere. i am not sure if that makes sense. and more importantly in terms of the administrative orders. nothing in here suggested that the commission could make a finding that a violation is willful. and that's to me the most important thing in 3764. if a commission finds that an

were you paid to review the documents? >> oh, no. i spent like four hours, my very personal time, review documents -- perfect. it occurred after the fact. thank you. >> so, anyway, the only question is there that we need to know what's going on in the park. and any additional information, definitely will help. and my opinion, you should grant rehearing, and you should know where the work's being done -- the permits -- inspection oversight. please grant the rehearing. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. seeing none then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> vice president fung: i have another question for ms. gallagher. let's clarify a couple of things on the timeline of documentation that was provided to you. the department has indicated you made six sunshine requests. the one that was provided to you on august 20th was reflective of which request? >> prior to the first hearing, i made two sunshine requests. one was dated june 21 and the other was dated june 26. i also, at the meeting, held at super

we have all our pies and this document, this is what he says. the document knows no catch. he didn't quite say that. it knows no -- and i truly believe we have something. at that time he was alone. .. >> i think he occupied his own seat. you know, i spent time with them, and i'd loo to say a word. people do a lot of talking on behalf of others. i sat with him in a meeting when i first got there, a curtesy that supposed to last 10 minutes, but it lasted two and a half hours, and he regales me with stories, and i said to him i wish that if i had had the courage and the age that i could have traveled with him across the south, but i doubt i would have had the courage that he had to do that. he looked at me very quietly saying i had to do in my time what i had to do. you have to do in your time what you have to do. that was all the guidance. perhaps, when we talk about this great document, it sums up the founder. it sums up those at the convention. they had to do in their time what they had to do, and they did it. we have to do in our time what we we have to do. will we do it?

in the document. and if we haven't had any referrals, it seems like we would be potentially legislating an issue that might not occur. and given us no reason to expect to occur. >> commissioner studley. >> i was going to suggest that if i understand where you are heading, that we not make changes now. because we would have to follow through all of implications. but that we create a list of issues that we want to talk to the sunshine task force about when they are able to meet again. and see if they, just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. or that we shouldn't have a home for it. but i think it's more important that we get as far as we can with this tonight. and flag that later. it doesn't stop anybody from doing anything they want to. it doesn't foreclose any opportunity to bring something to us from the task force or that came through that procedure. maybe we should put it on what my organization calls a bike rack, and understand that we want to check that through again. ideall

the documents we got were from the f.b.i. there's a separate group the partnership for civil justice in d.c. that has done fabulous work some foyers to d h s and the partnership for civil justice did obtain documents showing that the h.s. was quite involved the documents we have changed were from the f.b.i. the federal bureau of investigation which has a history of service spying on domestic activists what we wanted to know is whether that tradition that unhappy tradition continues to this day so what not surprisingly the f.b.i. was keeping tabs on the various then upcoming court shutdowns so you were saying before. a few documents were released i think thirteen pages worth but you were saying what was really interested interesting with the fact that they said they had thirty seven pages just on this topic alone on occupy surveillance talk a little bit about the significance of this. so there were additional pages that they did not produce and two things i think are especially interesting about this one they held back some of

yet the have documents for certain things. we have the documentation. and there's a long list of documents that the for vied to the applicants. another requirement is the age requirement. >>> our the police systems are due to reply? >>> it is temporary. it all me assumed they qualify and that this temporary relief for two years. they will have the authority to review but no one guarantees from the this program will even exist in two years >>> if they have the voting age in the can be vote in november? >>> is a temporary legal status. did not even greenheart card holders or senescence. other than work authorization that cannot live in fear of deportation. there is no other benefit >>> you are giving information to the government about what if your people at home and parents, grandparents and uncles and whoever it may be better not documented. does that put them at risk at all? >>> up to this 20 immigration is told us they're not going to be looking into the status of the parents. the application is not asking information about the appearance of the appli

the document, one page that you have, is the submission from the consultants. and so it would replace then -- the bullets underneath each of the district one, district two. so you're opening district one negative four points, whatever the deviation is, to preserve the following neighborhoods period no. communities of interest because we agreed there would only be neighborhoods, and not communities of interest. it would be to preserve the fo the data in this document provided, again, by the consultants which would be inserted. >> ok. >> i would just make the clarification and i think the data they submitted is not incomplete and they not that they did something incorrect lip but incomplete in terms of the neighborhood. for instance, the neighborhoods, sort of within the west of twin peeks council, whatever it is, 30 neighborhoods versus the west of twin peaks council, which we did not print to district seven, i think we should be fairly clear about the neighborhoods versus the general categories. so i don't think it's complete and reflective of what should go in

they didn't have to go to the religious document.they went to the founding document that we are created equal. that was always this thing you kept with you when you were treated badly, when people try to ingrained. you know, i hear people say it affected your self-esteem. it never affect the mind. absolutely no point in my life because from day one we knew we were people. the nuns said so, my grandfather said so and by golly the declaration of independence said so. it may have taken a more, black crow, jim crow laws, but i matter how contradictory that was, it starts there. the new book. that is what got me started again at eeoc to read this great document, to talk about founding. i wasn't going to be a judge. who knows how i became a judge. i was only interested in the facts about this country. the things that made it worth having in the lo and behold come to the understanding that the standing of the document is a wonderful thing and that was in the mid-1980s. i was chairman of eeoc, worry more about russia's been getting all sorts

taught to document in medical school, the way nurses are taught to document, completely, thoroughly enoughan independent person can come along, read the record, and know what's going on with the patient. that's a high standard, and many, probably most physicians don't consistently document to that level. the point i was trying to make is in addition to that problem, which, in our most recent report, was about a third of the area, there are a whole variety of other areas not related to the physicians' records. the -- some of the records -- some of the documents, suppliers create, and yet when their charged with -- when they're charged with direct responsibility of creating the records, they failed to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. with respect to the ads, it points to -- there are problems at a lot of levels, and it's not entirely laid at the feet of the treating physician and their quality of their recordkeeping. >> the treating physician, in effect, may agree to go along with prescribing or directing the use of these power mobility devices because of the demand generated by the ad

i don't think -- i certainly don't want to have to meet again to ratify this document again. so i think if you want to put something into the record, if you want to right now put in language into the record on your concurring view, then i think that would be fine. but i am not inclined to have a procedure where you go back, draft it and we come back and have to ratify something else. >> under no circumstances am i suggesting that we do that, but if i may, then i certainly would like to go on record that while we are not charged as a commission in making a recommendation on the penalty, i want to be clear that my own view is that based on our findings, that the appropriate punishment should be removal from office. and that is my personal view. and i would just like to make sure that that is on the record. [ inaudible ] >> there is no motion. >> okay, so the proposal is to add a concurring view from commissioner hayon stating that she supports a finding that official misconduct should result in the sheriff being removed from office. is that fair? okay. so we will consider that.

the proof is in one of alec's own documents.here is more to the story. >> house bill 1030 has to do with the establishment of a virtual public schools. >> last year, an online school in bill based on the alec model turned up in another state where alec has a powerful influence -- tennessee. it was introduced in both the state senate and house by alec members. the bill passed, making private corporations eligible for public money for online education. then within weeks, k12 corp. got a no bid contract to provide online education to any tennessee students from kindergarten through the eighth grade. let's review. the alec member corporations helped craft the bill. alec legislators introduced it and vote on it, and now there is a state law on the books that enables one of those corporations to get state money. game. set. match. this story is not about one company and the education industry and one lot in tennessee, but about hundreds of corporations in most every industry in flensing lawmakers in state after state, using alec as a f

if a member of the public would like a document to be displayed on the overhead projector please state such and remove the document when you would like the screen to return to live coverage of the meeting. >> president chiu: thank you. i want to mention one thing this week. last week our city attorney issued a public memo to all city employees about restrictions on campaign activities on city time and city property. since it is election season i want to take a moment to remind the public of this as well. campaign activities are not appropriate in city hall, including during public comment at the board of supervisors. if you are offering public comment, your comments should not advocate for or against pending ballot measures or candidates and along the same lines you should not introduce yourself as a candidate for office or as a supporter of a particular candidate or measure. with that, why don't we hear from our first speaker. >> i -- san francisco, david chiu -chiu -- abdulum gay -- bak obama -obama -- [speaking forein language] >> [timer sounding.] >> ladies and gentlemen, as you se

i have not seen if documented -- it documented that only a certain percentage of those units will be for the extremely low and very low. the law requires that 100% goes back to the employment of those individuals. for the redevelopment reports in the fiscal year '09-'10, required for the documentation. that is reported. we want to know how these projects have been developing and executed with taxpayers' dollars and about holding to compliance with the law and regulation of policy. i think you received this document. at your earliest convenience, we would like to talk with you concerning some very severe issues going on in this community. for the redevelopment and the housing authority. until then, if anyone knows about western editions, it is circulated. they did not make it in the but -- nip it in the bud, the housing for affordable low- income families are not at that stage that the law requires. i am not making something up of the top of my head, this is documented proof. and the the law of the state of california means declaration of public policy. if we are going to move forward

we have posted and circulated a written document that summarizes what was done on the 16th. thanks to commissioner liu for playing a significant part in putting this document together. before we begin, one issue i think should be made clear, there seems to have about some confusion about whether or not the commission would provide some recommendation as to what the effect of the recommendation of official misconduct should be. having reviewed the transcript and certainly my personal understanding of what we decided on the 16th was that there was no need to provide any explanation for suggestion of what the affect of a recommendation of official misconduct would be. because the charter clearly states that if there is a finding of official misconduct, then the person found to have committed official misconduct shall be removed from office. so it seemed to me there is no discretion for the commission to determine or to provide a recommendation to board as to what should happen, should the board find that the sheriff committed official misconduct. so i just want that to be clear