and so that is my say on the topic. >> thank you, commissioner hayon. >> and any other comments from the commissioners? >> okay. is there a motion to refer the matter back to the commission to provide to the task force to provide proper notice to the respondent? >> i move that we refer this matter back to the task force for more factual information. >> is there a second? >> i will second this. >> all in favor? >> could i clarify? >> yes. >> i just want to clarify, are you referring it... >> is this a free-for-all. >> are you intending to refer it back to the task force to further proceedings that will require them to bring it back before the commission or for them to determine how further to proceed? >> mr. pilpal. we have found that there was no, and we have not found a violation, we are referring it back without yet, finding a violation, that to, and i think that the task force then, when it gets it back and needs to go through its process and send it back to us as it normally would through the process. or not, if we choose not to. >> or not. >> that is an option. >> yeah, i mean,

croix, just automatically took it upon himself to decide that the commissioner hayon's actions in my hearing were without doubt, and although, his, logic is, and escapes me. and nor did she violate, as... of the campaign because she did not have a personal professional or a business relationship with mr. herrera and that is false, she is a former library commissioner and she is the city librarian and basically she was participating in the same fraud relating to the friends of the san francisco public library that i have been fighting for the last five years of the library commission. >> for her to sit here, and side with the library and, then disenagain you yusly at the end say that i don't want to appear that i have a conflict of interest. i will not vote, i don't even think that you knew what to do with that because you were all sitting there going,... she wanted to have her cake and eat it too and she wanted to stand up for something that she herself had done and then say that she was not in a conflict because she did not vote. >> matters appearing or not appearing on the, i am so

. >> commissioner hayon? >> i would like to ask to be recused from this vote as a former library commissioner. i don't want there to be any appearance of a conflict of interest. >> kind of should have done that before we he started discussing the question. >> oh, okay. so, what does that mean? >> you can still -- >> we would have to have a vote on the recusal. it would have been preferable to do it before, but i think if the commission feels like it is appropriate to recuse you, it's better to do it now than not at all. >> i'd move that commissioner hayon be permitted to abstain if she wishes to abstain. thaictionv. >> she has to be recused, not abstain. ~ >> i'm sorry, recused ~. >> i second. >> public comment? >> public comment. >>> yes. [inaudible]. because of the fact you commission operate under robert's rules of order, the chair cannot make a motion nor can he second a motion. it has to be first or second by one of the other commissioners. thank you very much. >> is that true? >> actually, i don't know.

commissioner hayon? >> i don't understand why is it not sufficient to hand out material to the public that they can look at while you make your presentation or your comments as a member of the public? it seems to me that given the many problematic buildingses in which commissions have to perform their duties, that makes the most sense would ~ without having to create special [speaker not understood] av, et cetera. i would think being able to hand out complete packets for someone's presentation should meet the requirement of providing the information to the public and having a fair hearing. >> i agree. >> commissioner, you wanted -- >> is it appropriate to make a motion at this point? >> yes. well, let's see if there's other comments from commissioners. no? any further comment? should we take public comment? if you want to -- >> yes. >> before a motion is made. public comment on this matter. >>> dr. derek kerr. i'm a little bit uncomfortable with the assumption that the members of the public are somehow i

meeting of the ethics commission of san francisco, and we will begin by taking the roll call, smi, hayon >> here. >> commissioner andrews? >> here. >> commissioner hene. >> here. >> we understand that commissioner renne is planning to attend and there he is. >> we will begin with public comments on the items appearing before the ethics commission. >> ray hartz, director of san francisco open government, just a little catch up here, i was in march visiting my family and left on march 5, and returned on march 25th and you can manl my surprise when i came back and i found out that you had schedule a hearinging regarding a matter to which i was a party on the fifth after i was on the east coast and held the hearing the day before i returned on the 25th. what a coincidence. what a coincidence. but i will talk about that a middle bit more later. on march 24th, this commission held a hearing on a case to when i was a party i think that you can imagine my reaction when on march 26th i first became aware of the series of events. on further consideration, i realized that i was altogether pleased t

hayon. >> what is the penalty, once whomever we determine to be the respondent here, what is, you know, what is the penalty for the violation? >> willful or otherwise? >> no penalty, for a non-willful violation. >> so then, you know, in terms of that, what difference because it make? it does not make any difference at all and i do agree with the idea that whoever is the head of the department is responsible for whatever takes place at the department. and in the sense of the buck stops here. but, while i have the floor i just want to say one thing, i think that i am the only person on this commission who really is just your average citizen and i am just an old lady from the richmond district and you know. >> my wife is going to get mad at you saying that. >> we live in the richmond. and my concern and i will voice it, and i agree that technically and legally there has been a violation. but, as a citizen of the city, i mean, who is looking out for my privacy? it seems to me that the sunshine ordinance task force only looks out for those people that have some kind of complaint about docum