there is nothing in the charter as miss herrick admits that exempts those emails. they are emails. they are not part of the investigative file. second, the non-internal emails, which miss herrick wrongly claims are confidential under section f1.110b are not, in fact, covered by that section. although she underlined the operative description of the confidential documents, the word "communications" or any word that would describe an email is missing. under the constitutional requirements for public access, these statutes must be read narrowly. thus, the description of what is confidential can't be expanded to cover communications; which are a completely animal in the investigative file, which was the subject of my complaint. those should also be disclosable, unless otherwise exempt and once an investigation is closed i maintain it becomes a public record and the entire file needs to be released. this commission should ask for an explanation from mr. st. croix about why he forget that these emails were in the file. you should have been made aware of that, at least by last october 22nd

>> in this case the department received an email, as stated, by both part ies. it's stated whereas they don't have objections to subito's itself, the concern is about the path of travel and accessible to the sidewalk leading to their facility. so it was evaluated on how wide the sidewalk is also. our minimum requirements are 6' path of travel at all times, perour regulations. i would like to find out from the gentleman who showed that picture from senor sigs of that location and the time it was, so we can notify that mobile food truck that they are in violation, based upon how it was set up, the permitting requirements in this case. >> because of the email, would you follow up on that, or does your department normally follow-up on emails regarding dispute or not dispute? i don't know if i'm saying that right. >> in this case the email, along with the documentation is submitted during the director's hearing process. >> did you get any feedback from that email, or the department decided that they weighted and decided not to follow-up? >> i'm uncertain if the heari

>> on the 16th the teacher in question emailed to the principal and said i never received a response, but i did want to let you know that i am talking with the union and they may be contacting you. also a parent told me today there were some parents who complained about my teaching with you. i wasn't aware of this and can i meet you with and there is another attachment. the principal went back to the teacher and said i am not sure about rescinding your resignation and your labor representative would be the best to advise you in this situation. >> that is also on the 16th? >> that was on the 20th. the decision was made not to accept her rescission of her resignation. from legal and labor, our actions are appropriate. i will read to you the section from the agreement that we have with our contract with ue, which is pretty short. >> before you start that, can you tell me, is the 20th, i'm sorry, the 20th is when that was communicated to the subject miss olsen, is that correct? >> the first day that she asked to rescind was the 14th and asked how it would be done, to her principal, not to

the email address was used one time and one time only. >> was it an email to you directly or to member else? >> it was directly to me. >> so, i mean, i guess that either -- i assume that the email was obtained from your husband, your email address. i assume that's how they got it. was that your assumption? >> i assumed so because he had that on his person when he disappeared -- or was taken. >> all right. so now there has been a shift. now the united states -- the state department believes -- and i don't know if you believe this as well -- that he is not being held by terrorists, but the iranian government or someone in iran? >> i do believe that the iranian government has my husband. >> when you go back in history, the last couple of years, the united states has been very aggressive to try to help get americans home. the three young college students, hikers who were there. are they trying to help you? what are they doing for you? >> well, the fbi -- the people working the case on a daily basis are fbi agents. and they have tried very hard to find out information about bob and get him

i think these emails may have been as part of our file, the commission's file. but it relates to both. >> okay. thank you. >> >> commissioner hayon? >> my question is in terms of the opinion that has been rentered by miss herrick, are we bound by that dismissing or is it simply advisory and we can decide what we think? >> we are not bound by her memo. we made our decisions at the october 22nd meeting. and as part of that, we asked her to review some additional documents, and she has now come back with a recommendation stating that she at least believes that. >> i read and understand that. >> so i don't think we're bound by this memo that she provided today or that is part of today's packet. >> but her opinion certainly should help us decide and vote on whether these three emails are public or not. is that right? >> right. >> and what i hear chair hur saying is that this memo is consistent with the actions we took -- the discussion we had at the last meeting about this. and we would be applying that same standard; that we think that matters -- communications betw

all of jim's emails are broken so stop trying to email him. >> yeah, well what am i supposed to do that'sig part of my time is emailing love notes to jim. >> stephanie: you sent me a story about a guy who hacked into somebody's email account and convinced people to take their clothes off. would you do that jacki? >> yeah there was a nigerian friend who asked me to do that. >> stephanie: i just automatically go, oh jim, stop emailing me, how many times are you going to ask. >> you know he can't see you through the computer right? >> stephanie: if you have a little camera. >> yes, with your permission. it's former senator's chuck hagel's turn on capitol hill today as he faces his confirmation hearing to be the next secretary of defense. expect the toughest questions to come from his own party. he had made some marks and decisions in the past which have lead to concerns including he couldn't support sanctions against iran. there are 55 demes in the senate, and 45 republicans, so he can still make it through. the armed services committee gave hagel some questions to answer in advance. he says

we interviewed the witnesses who wrote those emails, or some of those emails, and asked them why theydoing it, and they told us they were doing it for purposes of affecting the numbers. >> do you think lehman executives knew that this was wrong? >> for some of them, certainly. there was concerns being expressed by--at high levels about whether this is appropriate, what happens if the street finds out about it. so, you know, there was a concern that there's a real question about whether we can do this, whether this was right or not. >> one of those people was matthew lee, who had been a senior executive at lehman and the accountant responsible for its global balance sheet. lee was one of the first to raise objections inside lehman about the accounting trick known as repo 105. >> it sounded like a rat poison, repo 105, when i first heard it. so i investigated what it was, and i didn't like what i saw. >> was there a point in which you saw the accounting principles employed by lehman brothers change? >> november 30, 2007 was the end of our fiscal year. and i fully expected us, you know,

>> i'm lost. >> commission renne's suggestion and to add email language to subsection 2c2. other amendments that were proposed? is there a motion to adopt decision point subject to those changes? >> so moved? >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, the motion passes. decision point 3 has do with chapter 3. any comments from the commissioners on decision point 3? >> i think we might want to make the same change that commissioner renne suggested earlier in 3b, reversing 2 and 3. >> agreed. >> b2 would become b3 and b3 would become b2. >> right. >> any other issues? i had a couple of questions. do we have any provision for the situation where something comes to us originally, we dismiss it, and then the same complaint goes to sunshine and comes through their process? >> we have not addressed that. >> okay. or visa versa, if it comes through sunshine and they don't like that and they come directly to us. it would be, i think, helpful to have language that would prevent that. because i don't think we want to handle the same complaint twice or have it go thr

after email after email and i'm c.c. it on most of them he sends them emails every single day for the last five years it is the population demanding to know where their gold is the population is the one that needs to have faith in their central banks that need to have faith in their politicians to keep this whole thing running and if they lose that faith then you see the central bankers and some of the politicians who are answerable to the voting population that there are the ones that are starting to be forced by the population and shows you that the population the people ordinary people can have some power they can crash j.p. morgan by silver one ounce of silver bought by one hundred million people around the world can crash j.p. morgan and as rob kirby then said basically the holy who has system yes sure the central bankers are now being forced to account for their gold but it doesn't mean they're going to share that gold wants to paper apocalypse is upon us remember central banks are owned by the same banks as j.p. m

email me. there are great stories i have been hearing today. we have amazing and large panel and it is an honor to moderate for them. real quickly you will have to take my word. i have read their full bios which are three pages here. i'm not going to read all of that but you have to my word these are award winning policy makers and leaders in our community. we will start with jeff rosen. [applause] he's the district attorney of santa clara county and the recognized leader in criminal justice reform. he oversees the largest prosecutor's office north of los angeles and prosecute about 40,000 cases each year, so he is on the ground. he sees it all. he is however a green bay packer fan but we will forgive him because they lost. >> you should be very happy. you won. >> next to him is richard carranza and the superintendent of san francisco unified, just started in the summer of july. prior to that he was the deputy superintendent of innovation and social justice. [applause] next to richard is nancy o'malley, district attorney for alameda county. she

. >> the resignee sent out an email stating to staff that she resigned, is that correct? >> yes, she did. >> so when she put into motion wanting to revoke her resignation, she was actually past the timeframe of the parameters of when she could revoke? >> yes, she was. >> commissioner mendoza? >> i was wondering why we moved it from the 17th to the 30th? >> she submitted that and it was con [srao-epbts/] for us as well. con convenient for us as well and it's my understanding that the new teacher who was hired would not be available until the 1st of the month and asked her if she would stay until the end of the month and she submitted an extension of her time until the 30th of november. >> commissioner maufas? >> i guess you are not comfortable with this, but you have mentioned it and i will mention it as well. the discussion between the principal and miss olsen saying somebody is going to start on the 30th and she submitted a second resignation letter changing the date to the 30th. sounds like that is the reason. i am not going to project, but just guess on my own. and the

i got a text message or email from deputy superintendent lee. is that in there? we had talked about -- i had talked to the deputy superintendent about including something in the spending plan or in its cover letter or something that would be clear about the -- that we intended to -- a plan that would include spending of the money, the entire amount with the trigger not pulled so i appreciate we've gotten now a memo that says here a process we're going to use, but i don't know, and maybe you have it and i don't because i'm not there, something that makes it clear in the plan that we're giving them now which i think it should. >> mr. lee -- superintendent, do you want to address -- deputy superintendent. >> yes, just to share a little bit more information to what commissioner wynns is referring to. she did contact me i believe late afternoon on friday with a request or suggestion that at that -- especially at that time when it appeared unclear about whether the city was going to appropriate the full amount of the public education enrichment fund that in the distric

my email is johnpaul.scott@sf.gov.org. it hasn't come up yet. thank you. no period between sf and gov. my telephone number is 415-554-6789. just call me at our main number. and our tty is 415-554-6169. thank you. my second presentation is on the mayor's office on disability capital projects requests for the next fiscal year, fiscal year 2014. these have already been submitted to the capital committee. and many of these are continuations of projects that we already have in the works. we try not to overwhelm the system with too much requests and spread our funding out based on the projects scheduled. but our funding tends to be a priority by the mayor's office and by the board of supervisors and the capital committee. and we really do appreciate the attention that they give our projects. for san francisco general hospital, we are, of course, fully funded for the work we're doing inside building 5, the main hospital. which will become clinics and a support hospital once the new san francisco general rebuild project is complete. we're asking for an additional

[applause] so we have a large panel and they can all tell you i sent them an email yesterday said you will have a brief time to say what you do, what your organization is doing, address the needs of the kids suffering or facing bullying and i told them they have two to three minutes, not 23 minutes and i'm going to hold them to it so jeff let's start with you. >> sure. thank you. i think one thing that a perspective that prosecutors can to this discussion is first of all the reason people become prosecutors generally they don't like it when other people are taken advantage of. it really offends the very core for a prosecutor. you know i often joke i don't even like when people cut in line but i recognize there is not necessarily a remedy to that, but so bullying is something that almost everybody has had an experience in their life of being bullied, and i think one perspective as prosecutors is if we don't address this today's bullies -- and if we don't address it are tomorrow's batters, and today's victims of bullying becomes tomorrow's victims. that is painting with a very broad bru

what i received was an email that a constituent of supervisor kim, named andrew adams, which he sent to jane kim on september 28th. that was the only thing that i received. what is significant is that mr. adams' contacted information was redacted in that response. nothing else. no indication at all that they intended, had considered any possible response to you or any consideration of a possible response to you. you have to realize that redacting that contact information is the city hall equivalent of flipping somebody the bird. it's been established by the sunshine ordinance task force and courts in state that a person can't invoke somebody else's right to privacy by redacting their contact information and once it's waived, it can't be reinvoked again. so they have no grounds to redact that contact information and they know it. this would be the equivalent as if the finding of official misconduct against ross mirkarimi was responded with well we're friends with ross mirkarimi and we don't have to give you an answer and, in fact nobody said that. in this instance it's a badge of hono

although perhaps i -- covered in chapter didn't we have something in 3 that it could be sent by email? >> yes the last sentence of d2 on page 10. >> is there a reason we didn't include that? okay. having gone through the process we went through this summer, i found email service to be incredibly helpful and would encourage it. and so, if we're going to include it in chapter 3, i would include it in chapter 2 as well. public comment on chapter 2? >> for the record knee, first of all in the question of the press releases including entire texts of orders of determination in electronic releases there is no reason not to provide an electronic link to the orders. presumably they are drafted on computers and microsoft or some other program. so the electronic aspect of it is already there and with the text, there is no reason not to provide that link. a couple other things. in decision points 2-chapter 2, ii, section d for david, subsection 2. that and chapter 3, iii, section b, subsection 2 differ in setting the majority threshold. majority vote threshold to determine whether a respondent vi