mr. shaw's response, but it did experience a opinion as to what i thought would happen with the complaint and it was directed to mr. st. croix. he is clearly the person that i typically deal with when trying to figure out procedural matters and what should be disclosed and what should be in the packet and what shouldn't. so i followed my regular procedure in sharing that with him. does that create a conflict that should lead me to recould yous myself from this matter? >> no it does not create a legal conflict or a disqualifying conflict that would require you to recuse yourself. >> it indicates that you reviewed her analysis and indicates your views of that analysis and my reading of it, you were asking mr. saint croix whether it should be made public and nothing in the e-mail indicates that you are bias in any way that would prevent you from participating in this decision. >> do any of my fellow commissioners have a... >> please? >> issue a question of my involvement in adjudicating this matter? >> i do not. because i think that as mr. gibner said it reflects, sort of the after the fact,

i think that mr. shaw was largely correct on the question of amrikbility of the balancing tests san francisco in the sunshine ordinance and the incorporation of the state law with some exceptions. i'm looking very carefully at the summary of the complaints in the two memos from miss herrick and it seems to me that the extent to which there is an investigatory file at the city controllers office or that the commission has conducted an investigation, that those investigations are probably not subject to disclosure. but, the scope of the underlying request between the two offices related to the complaint seems to me to suggest a body of material that is beyond the investigatorry file itself and may include correspondence about the handling of the aspect and not the file itself and to the extent that any such records might exist, they to me, to my read might be subject to disclosure, albeit in a redacted form. i don't know if they exist, but that is my view on that with regard to any closing memo, if there was

chat field who is not here, wrote mr. shaw in may, the ethics commission regularly handles referals from the task force, however it will not ajudd kate these matters, in both complaints. he repeated that in his confidential memo to mr. shen and to mark kets of the district attorney office. because the allegation involves johnson and croy executive director of the commission, the agency cannot handle the matter. period. the commission is engaged in the discussion with the various outside agency and so forth and so on. that was in august of last year. i did a record search of your files. i just came back from sitting in the commissions office. there is absolutely records of any kind relating to discussions with any other agencies. the references to the san jose city attorney's office are dated 9 months after that. but i think what is really important is that there is a, i think, a reference in an e-mail that it was mr. st craw who spoke to the city attorney about taking these cases. so what we don't know is how this magically ha

attorney, let him speak to some of these issue and answer your questions, you would rather let it be mr. shaw who can't, and in your knowledge, answer those questions. so that you have justification for doing what you want to do. >> the bottom line is if you find mr. st. croix independent, you are preparing your own name. if you find him guilt y you are finding yourself guilty because delegation is not abdocation. >> good evening, dr. derek kerr again. one of the things that prompted mr. shaw's request, was the fact that retaliation had already occurred against the two whistle blowers who reported the misappropriations from the gift fund. i understand the they theory cal concept of protecting them in the future by keeping things confidential. but it doesn't work in reality, you see? now, if you conduct the f.b.i., and ask for information about a closed case, they will tell you that how they investigated the process is confidential. some of the information is confidential but they will still send you the file, sometimes it will be completely blackened out. but you know that there is something.

mr. shaw i will give you a minute, and i am not sure what you have. >> i just want to note, mr. gibner indicated that miss herrick was stepping into the shoes of the executive director, right? >> can you get to your point, please? >> you are going to let the acting in the shoes executive director, determine herself the contents of those files? why can't you carve out the time and you examine them? so that it is not a member of the staff filling in for something the ethics commission apparently doesn't want to do itself? >> you would rather have us review the documents? is that your position? >> absolutely. >> you could use a hearing officer. >> sir, not i am going to hear from you. >> i am not going to hear from you, please, shut down. >> i want to object to one thing only. >> if i let you speak everybody has to speak. and we are not going to go forward with this. >> on that part of the voters we said that 6724 is part of the law of this county and you cannot just throw it out... >> can i make myself clear? >> no. >> i want an ethics commiting commissioner not a deposit city att

it's very nice to meet you, mr. shaw. please call me edward.e, many years ago. you look like her, if memory serves me. that's what people tell me. i'm very happy to be here. we're very glad to have you here. i, uh... i think i'd better sit down. i'm afraid these visits here are rather tiring. they take the wind out of my sails. can i get you anything? no, i'll be fine. just let me rest a while. are you going to stay for supper? i wouldn't miss it. go on, now, and show her the rest of the house. and i'll see you at supper, rebecca. that'll be very nice. nancy: my uncle edward lived in the house his whole life. but his physical condition deteriorated too much and i had to move him to one of those retirement homes for the elderly. it was a very difficult decision for both of us... but at least he comes home once a week. today's the day. he's a very distinguished gentleman. and he was a very good musician, too. he used to play the piano beautifully but he can't anymore. he's... just too frail. come see the kitchen. and this is the kitchen. who left