any public comment on... >> commissioners, ray hart, spec tor san francisco. governors like to point out the one page that nobody seemed to mention, and i can understand why you don't want to mention it. it's the letter from the office of the district attorney to miss pelham regarding what you neglected to act upon and had to go before the task force, and from what i read, the district attorney said you did violate the brown act, and i admit. i was wrong, i kind of went in there and took up the bat for you and said well, i don't think they really did. well, i got it wrong, too. so i'm not perfect. i never pretended to be, but the bottom line is, somebody held you in account and you don't like it. that's one thing that i've found is very common on boards of this city, is if somebody says something to a board or commission, they just ignore it because they don't want to -- number one, they can't give a response. you never get a response, you get a reaction, and you ask why i behave the way i do? it's because you don't get a response from anybody. what you get is

sunshine ordinance task force ordinary determination in file number 16116, ray hart v. commissioner quentin kopp and the ethics commission. findings of law and conclusions of law. based on the testimony and evidence presented the sunshine ordinance task force found that commissioner quentin kopp and the ethics commission violated the sunshine ordinance section 67.15. if a member of a commission wishes to unlawfully interrupt a member of the public, that's okay with you. commissioner kopp did it, commissioner keane endorsed it, and the rest of you sat silent. but when a member of the public speaks out of turn, that is he -- that's a no-no. what hypocrites you are. you would use the rules to maintain order because you don't like what's being said or you don't like the way people are saying it, so mr. keane's comment last time about mr. hart's we had a democratic process, why don't you respect it, was b.s. it wasn't a democratic process, it was a show trial, a show hearing. it was a joke. particularly hypocritical was chair keane's comments last time that i respect the dem

it goes down to ray hart, and david leehan all spoke on this agenda. the public had no idea what they said. now, is it that they can then go to the transcript to find out what was said? i'm just curious. i read the minutes, and i said, i would have no idea on any given item, when the speaker's identified, what he or she said. >> if -- if -- the question is whether these are legally sufficient. i think the answer is yes. whether -- but i think it's up to the commission whether to add more detail or to -- you know, to instruct, you know, the staff to put greater detail in the -- in the -- in the minutes. >> i mean, i hate to put a burden, but i assume there's someone who, when they prepare them, is listening to the record and could, if they -- if he or she wished, could summarize -- in fact one of the complaints that mr. hart has always made is that when we do summarize, we misstate, but i just was struck by this set of minutes that almost every time, when it said somebody spoke, i don't know if they spoke for or against. >> if i could commissioner renne

. >> commissioners ray hart san fo open government. let's not pretend this change iy reason other than the conveniene commissioners and staff. the only reason i see for makine change is that some members of e commission are not used to beinp beyond their normal bedtimes. the interest of the public be d. even your inform the poll condut the last meeting kateed three qs of those that reponded would be inconvenienced by change. without making an effort to sees would affect public participatiu will make the change you intendo make all along. i believe this change will benee ethics staff. after all, why should they be inconvenienced to accommodate te public? this one-sided memorandum produy the staff deals with nothing bue mechanics of making the change,, the public be damned. i don't know where this came fr. the first thing i heard about ts commissioner lee saying i brougs idea up. all of a sudden, it's thrown one public full-blown with no real justification, no effort to cheh the public whether or not it wod affect public attendance and p

. >> commissioners, ray hart, director of san francisco open government, and i'll be honest with you, i'm confused as held. first, commissioner kopp made a motion to go into executive session, and you kind of blew past that, and you made a motion, which was seconded, and then, you took public comment, and i'm not even sure which of those motions we're commenting on, and the idea that you approved something last month, changed what you approved, and now it's sort of proforma, automatically, to be approved here, i don't know where that argument came from. it made no sense at all. if you made changes to what you said last month, you have to approve it before you submit it to the board of supervisors, otherwise, you have two documents out there. one you're approving this month, and one you've approved last month, and which should the staff send to the board of supervisors. i have -- i have to say, i agree with the members of the public who talked about the nonprofit issues. you're going to make it so i don't want to contribute any money to anything, and i don't want to ask anybody to cont