mr. st. croix certainly is not sleeping, he is extremely alert and detail oriented but he has still and he is still dedicated as before to protecting the guilty, especially if those are city officials. now i won't go into the raft of delays that happened with this case which i filed to the sunshine task force on behave of library users association more than a year and a half ago. but, mr. st. croix has exerted legals to define this as a complaint by me personally against a staff member of the arts commission personally. and there by defining it away completely as to any responsibility. it is like saying the knife did it so too bad if there has been a murder but there is really nobody accountable. mr. st. croix goes on and on in the letter about the complainant was peter warfield and then he goes on and defines, and so he talks about on page 2 of the letter, they referred it as a willful violation under section 67 hour miss patterson is not a elected official and will be held under chapter two. if y

mr. st. croix has framed it as one individual against another individual and that is just wrong on every level including as i said, your own staff doing the reach and presumably some, i don't know what you call it, some efforts and so i think that this whole hearing is tainted by that whole mess and moves to be properly done. >> yes? >> hopefully, it can provide a little clarification as to why mr. patterson was the named respondent. our regulation was responded do not allow us to name a agency, we have to name an individual, as a city officer or a employee to write down the complaint. and just to have committed the violation. and she was the complainant, and she was the only one named in the complaint and the staff has not permitted to us when they were not in the department head and the investigation, and he may or may not have the responsibility and if it requires, and that is something that she will consider as of now, and it says that it has to be a person is not an agency. >> and with that sa

mr. st. croix did. you have not had a discussion about the placements of these? he decided to stop thuting them in and put them in the body and portray it as an accommodation to me. >> commissioner studley? >> in my view there was no violation here of 67.16 because the library commission included the 150-word statements in the minutes. and in my view, in the minutes includes both in the body of the minutes, and in the addendum. one thing that i pointed out the last time is to me, a numbered document from one to... >> it is not your free speech. >> excuse me mr. hartz i'm speaking. i think that we have raised two completely separate issues here. these complaints before us, relate to whether the inclusion of the 150-word statements in the minutes is a violation and we have to affirmatively find if we think that there was a violation. the commissioners may not all agree with me that the addendum is perfectly satisfactory way of accomplishing the statutory responsibilities. there is a separate issue th

mr. st. croix has framed it as one individual against another individual and that is just wrong on every level including as i said, your own staff doing the reach and presumably some, i don't know what you call it, some efforts and so i thin

mr. st. croix? >> so, under chapter two the regulations there is not a staff memo or a staff recommendation, there is a presumption of the task force findings are correct and the respondent in this case bears the burden to show that the task force errored in this determination, three commissioners are responsible to make sure that they have met his or her burden and so the respondent is permitted to speak first for five minutes. and complainant has five minutes to speak and then the respondent has a three-minute rebuttal. >> my name is kate patterson and in i am the primary responder to the sunshine requests that come to the agency. first i would like to acknowledge that responding in the task force order april 5, 2012, the arts commission failed to respond within the designated time frame. we don't have a good excuse, and it was simply overlooked and it was overlooked by me, specifically and for this, we have apologized on the numerous occasions to mr. warfield and to the sunshine task force and h

mr. st. croix on this. so i am looking at the memo on page six and it says from 2010 to 2012, lobbyists in san francisco reported 614,175 dollars in contributions, those are directly from the lobbyists themselves? >> yes. but i believe that they are not just a candidate committees, but also to the independent expenditures committees. >> but in any event, if we are talking about 80 some lobbyists a year, we are talking about more than $500 per lobbyist. >> there is no limit. >> fine, it is just that there is not just, it is not just swating a net. it is a lot of money that lobbyists are contributing. >> although, and i don't take a position, but i would think that two percent being a small share. >> 100 is a significant number from a small number of people. but two percent of all contributions is it enough to alter the landscape at that level? >> which way? >> 2 percent from a very small number of people. i mean,... >> i agree with you commissioner renne. but, i guess what i would say is perhaps it is at lea

mr. st. croix you were thinking that we might, you know, go through them and raise others of them at future times. did you think that the group that we looked at here were the only ones that you wanted to bring forward at this point? or is this a rolling process and how might we suggest if we... >> those were the specific things outlined in the report. and some of these others, you know, are based on the report and other comments. so, if there is any in particular, that you wanted to discuss, i think that we can do that. now. >> well, i don't want to drag it out. and i like the process of the staff giving us some idea of what the context is. and some of these may, in fact, the items that are important, but the others may be things where there is a factual misunderstanding or if we flag them and we may learn that there is already something that covers that point. >> so, one possibility would be for me to just let you know which ones i thought... >> i think that the chair and i discussed. >> that we

mr. st. croix, your executive director appeared before the compliance and the amendment committee in the case involving him and they asked him. is this a policy? no, it is a accommodation to mr. hartz. you are going to put them in to please him. >> they asked him, is there any policy on this? no. there is not. is there anything in writing? no, there is not. and so basically, there are last question was so you are telling us that you can basically just then go back to what you were doing before and mr. hartz will have to go through and fight the battle all over again? >> they are deceitful people and lieers and it is a matter of public record, for years they have been coming before the public and lying about the financial dealings of the friends of the san francisco public library. and that group has raised it since 2000 more than $60 million in the name of the public library and the citizens of this city and the tax payers of this city and the library commission has come before the public and allow

mr. st. croix? you look troubled. >> but that is how you look often when i say things. >> i think that your first assessment was right. i think that the prior motion that was adopted spoke to the fact that the redactions should have included information on the justification and didn't. that does not mean that the redactions themselves were improper. i think that you have already found that they should have followed 67.27 and didn't. >> and that you are leaving... and you are intent or your discussion was that the redactions themselves were not improper and at least that is what it seems to be it themselves fl >> that is why i wanted to make the motion and i think that they are finding it. >> do you want to make your motion? >> i do. >> do i need to restate it? >> i move that we find that the respondent has met the burden of establishing that the information redacted was appropriately kept to a minimum pursuant to 67.26. >> yes. >> further discussion on this? >> just so that i am clear on this, would

mr. st. croix said is that the vendors floated loans to candidates and would later see if the candidates were going to be able to pay them back. they expected those candidates to win and when they won, to be able to lobby those candidates on behalf of the other clients and that became a standard way of doing business about ten years ago in this city. and it is less true today. but it was certainly prevalent at this time. you have people that you have never heard of in your life and suddenly had campaign consultants who were able to then raise the money to pay off the debts after they were in office as you can imagine. the desirability of contributing someone who is in office as opposed to someone who lost office is vastly different. >> and in this case, what you are really seeing is that within three months, they should be able to pay off, if it was a legitimate loan, you would look at the profession of whether or not it was after the election, the fact that it was the last ten or 20 days before th

mr. st. croix other members of his staff. >> um-hm. >>> so, i feel that the commissioners should be a little more authoritative in their role. >> okay, thank you. i have no further questions. but i would like to speak to mr. brett. mr. brett andrews. thank you, sir. sorry, you're not going to get away -- >>> yes. >> i'm warmed up now. >>> i see that. >> okay. so, you know, i think a lot of my questions are very similar to what i was asking the previous speaker. i would like you to describe to me your methodical approach to, to ethics complaints. how do you begin -- how would you approach to begin to resolve these ethical complaints? >>> well, first, there is a procedure in place. so, it's important to make sure that the procedure for filing that complaint was filed properly. a lot like in managing an organization, there is a procedure for filing a complaint and that would be in written form. we would make sure that,