mr. chatfield, when he transferred my case to san jose. noted in the cover mail, quote, the ethic's commission regularly handles cases for the sunshine force act. and however cannot be (inaudible) as executive director is the named respondent in both claims, end quote. it should be argued that the ethics commission committed by mr. chatfield that it cannot hear any part of either of my cases. whether to dismiss the complaints or calendar a complaint on the full hearing of the merits. your agenda to indicate that the commission is going to deliberate this case is a pure conflict of interest. there are others. formerally task force member renne has recused himself when hearing richard mou case, because mr. mou had a case against mr. renne's wife. and similarly mr. renne's wife has been in several cases of laguna honda hospital. and her refusal to release form 990 tax statements. at the least mr. renne should follow the lead and recuse himself from this discussion. but what i am asking you is to take this off of your calendar [buzzer] and tra

mr. chatfield. ? >> i don't have opposition with that, i think we agree with commissioner renne, the idea is to make it as broad as possible. if it comes to the language of both, i think that will be fine. >> i think that's a reasonable proposal. any objection from the commissioners? okay. so public records i think should be amended to add or 67.24 after public records act. obviously with the correct statutory language. okay. is there a motion to adopt as amended the definitions and language in decision point 1? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. opposed? what is that? >> we already had public comment. opposed? hearing none, that motion passes. the next issue is decision point 2. i had a few proposed revisions here as well. under 2-1-a. this may seem nit picky, but i think it might clarify issues a little bit. under "b," i think it should read, willful violations of city officers and city employees. other than elected officials and department heads. is that accurate? because we have the

mr. chatfield? >> the way they are drafted now, yes. the standard is different for a department head or elected official. they are separated in two different proceedings. >> procedurally is there anything other than the burden issue, the presumption that is different from the two sets of procedures? >> not significantly. the hearing most likely will follow in the same way. >> they are both public and the standard and evidentiary issues and the procedure. seem to be the same. >> the role of the commission/staff is different. >> that is true. the role of the executive director and staff would be very different. >> the comment i wanted to add at the outset was about timing. i agree with you that we have had very helpful conversations with the task force through two cycles of review. i wish we had been able to get comments on this written draft as we get closer and closer we think to something that resolves a number of these issues. but am i correct, we can go back and amend if after the task force comes together again and is able to begin

mr. chatfield, any different view? >> no, the city attorney made it che clear the best way to approach is with a provision. and it's better to pursue in a way to actually deal with it. >> yeah, what happens in a situation where we have the show-cause hearing. the defense is advice of counsel. looking at it, we think that the advice of counsel defense lacks merit. what happens then? >> i think that would be some factual matter for you to determine. >> but if we were to order the document produced and found the defense lacking. they don't turn it over because they did get advice of counsel saying they shouldn't. how do we resolve that? >> well, the ordinance itself, and apart from the remedies we have done here. the ordinance allows that person to go to court to get the city to produce the document. we could not initiate a court action for them. that would have to be their next step. maybe that's the advice you could give to them as a commission. apart from the penalty we have done here, i don't know anything from that f