commission and took it up in closed session and made a determination. >> and the members of the san francisco ethics commission ultimately made the decision. >> that is correct. the san francisco ethics, yes. >> thank you. >> and i should add that there have been other complaints that are confidential because they fall within the confidentiality rubric of the charter that have been handled the same way complaints against the staff where the oakland ethics commission or perhaps another outside body has done the investigation, come back to the san francisco ethics commissioners for a final adjudication. >> is there any policy reason that you are aware of that would prevent us from having another body adjudicate the entire issue, rather than having it from another body and coming back to the members for a final adjudication? >> you are asking whether there is a legal... whether you are legally can send it to an outside body? >> one question would be legally permitted and is there a policy consideration that i am not seeing? yes, for not putting it that way. >> i am not sure whether you are legally perm

not to another agency like the san francisco ethics commission or the oakland ethics commission. >> okay. thank you. very much. >> and any other questions for miss herrick on this matter? >> no. i don't have any. >> commissioner studley, you had raised this as a potential issue, do you... how would you recommend that we proceed? >> well, i will make a suggestion... i mean i am... i do find it meaningful that the city attorney reminds us that we have no legal conflict either individually or collectively. i have no obligation to the executive director, the executive director obligation is to the commission as a group and to the city and county, not personal. i can understand why we don't have staff to investigate their supervisor, that makes complete sense. so in trying to... i just want you to create a window where we didn't just rush to do something that thoughtful people were flagging for. but as we were trying to construct it, as a question of legal conflict and of our confidence to do it and our responsibility to do it, which is the other part mr. gibner raised. there is the past prac

[ gavel ] >> good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission and we'll begin by taking roll. commissioner studley? >> here. >> commissioner liu? >> commissioner renee? >> present. all members of the commission being present, let's start with the agenda. public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission. :good evening dale pillpa, just wanted to comment and perhaps inquire on the election season that has just concluded. i assume that the staff will be analyzing the effectiveness of the matching -- the public finance program and perhaps compiling a report and i'm just wondering what the thinking is on the timing for that? it's usually a few months down the road, but given the various things that happened this cycle, i believe it will be interesting to look at the numbers after the fact and maybe we can have some discussion at that time about the program and how it works given what we anticipated about a year-ago going into this cycle. i don't know if staff has an indication of

san francisco? because it's kind of confusing. >> thank you. >> the next question is for miss breed, mr. davis and miss johnson. a recent civil grand jury report called the san francisco ethics commission essentially a sleeping watchdog. at the request of supervisor campos the city requested a comparison of ethics in san îg:]Ñand los angele identifying ways our ethic laws could be strengthened. as supervisors, what if anything would you propose to strength the city's ethics laws. i will start with mr. davis. >> strong ethic laws are essential. what is happening with our sunshine task force and hope davis can speak to this since she recently served on the task force. these need to be strengthened and one problem we have is around enforcement. i would like to see more of the ethical violations of larger committees, some of which are operating, for instance, in some shady areas of law. one was the run he ed run, the committee for mayor ed lee last year and the campaigns that aren't swaying the politics of city, the way the run ed run campaign did. so i think that is one the issues and improving our good government and ethic laws in san francisco. >> miss breed, would you like

. >> reporter: he is a former san francisco ethic's commissioner.ow he is facing his own tax dilemma. >> reporter: is it fair folks like you don't pay your fair share. >> i pay all my taxes as i can. and so that is all i got to say. >> reporter: he said he is working with the tax board to pay his bills. he is one in a long list of californians on the hook. we found professionals, including other lawyers, doctors, nurses, celebrities, and topping the list with a $10 million tax bill, founder of san francisco based c-net. we couldn't find him. but here on main street, is there a reason you are not paying? we confronted another. >> reporter: you owe more than $500,000 to the state. >> no, we don't. >> reporter: that is what it says? they say the couple living in this 2.5-acre gated estate is behind on their taxes. >> reporter: number 229 -- >> i don't care what this is. stop. >> reporter: then there is this doctor. he is number one on the list of corporate. >> why he hasn't paid a $4.1 million tax bill. the state will continue to shame these tax evader

ethics of freebies. they are singing a different tune about free tickets. days before the season opener we asked san franciscoervisors about the ethics of free tickets. >> let's go. let's go. >> reporter: two bay area cities separated by 45 miles of roadway and one major difference. >> the acceptance of tickets presents thorny ethical issues. >> we've done this in san francisco for years. >> reporter: they accepted free 49ers tickets last season. >> at times you give your tickets away to friends? >> the championship game the other day i gave to my mother-in-law. >> reporter: seven months later, will you accept free tickets this season? >> i have not decided yet what i will do. >> sir, it's a policy decision. you've had months to think about this. >> i'm not going to decide right now. >> reporter: in the south bay with a new stadium less than two years away, santa clara city attorney has a different view on the ethics of free tickets. >> we're not to accept any type of tickets from the team. >> reporter: the ethical difference shows up in writing. san francisco's contract with the 49ers written three decades a

thanks. >> commissioners, ray heart, san francisco, open government, now that this ethics committee is holding meetings on sfgtv in

ethics. >>> san francisco city attorney is challenging the maker of a popular energy drink to prove its product is safe. we have written to the monster energy company asking it to substashiate the claims that the drinks are safe. the drinks came in for scrutiny last week after the fda disclosed five deaths are possibly linked to the beverages, in a statement monster energy says they have documentation to prove the safety of the drink products. crowds in san francisco set fire to a shoe shine stand but tonight the owner of the stand is back in business thanks to a generation donation, he received a brand-new stand today from san francisco recycling contractor. workers found wed and assembled a new stand where he has made his living now for the past six years. >> just overwhelmed. the best city here to live in the world. these people exactly out of the woodwork to help people trying to help themselves. >> they are planning find more replacement chairs that were destroyed by the vandals. the police told us there have been no arrests in the casism the evening commute is easing up after a big rig cr

san francisco. >> i believe somewhere along the lines, the ethics commission in their response which the sunshine ordinance task force rejected, indicated that the ethics commission, the ethics commission staff indicated and i believe so did the city controller, that they were withholding based on 6254 f. that did not apply either ethics, our ethics commission, or to the city controller's office. 6254 f, says that records of complaints are investigations conducted by or records of intelligence information or security procedures of the office of attorney general and the department of justice. and any state or local police agency or any investigate compiled by any other state or local police agency those records can be withheld. you are saying the ethics commission, the ethics commission staff and the city controller are not police agencies of any sort whatsoever. so their reliance on 6254 is also incorrect. >> i agree that we are not a police agency, but one of the questions that i had was what the definition of a law enforcement agency is since we are enforcing a set of laws for which we have a p

. >> commissioners, ray heart, san francisco, open government, now that this ethics committee is holding meetings on sfgtv in full view of the public it becomes more apparent how much of an enabler this body has been, it enables city bodies and personnel to evade their daoulties under the law and to hide that from public scrutiny. the whistle blower laws are not be used to protect the whistle blower but to protect the target. they are being used to hide the true facts of the investigation and to allow the city agency and employees to evade their actions. they hide the extent and the validity of the investigative process used by the ethics staff and the public records law are always intended to disclose rather than conceal public matters. instead these laws are purposefully misinterpreted to protect the agencies in question but also the ethics staff. as far as you not having a conflict of interest, let's look at the arts commission when they got the report from the civil grand jury that listed what they had done, including spending $300,000 on things that they had no legal authority to do

ethics committee in the whole year. thank you. >> commissioners, ray heart, san francisco, open government. despite all of the complaints in this report regarding the low staffing levels it is hard to see what benefits the public gains for expenditures of millions of dollars each year. even the budget figures listed in this report are impossible to understand. the latest six years of figures range from 3.6 million, to 8.4 million. that is an average of 6 million dollars a year. what do the citizens of san francisco get for this $6 million amount? honestly, reading the report there would not be seen to be much bang for the buck. i have heard estimates anywhere from 1.2 to 1.8 million just for the investigation of the sheriff. the referals for the sunshine ordinance task force are still after 14 years not being heard. the civil grand jury report is dismissed in this report, with only a link to the report and a link to your response. and so basically you did not even feel it was worth commenting on the civil grand jury report. what exactly do the citizens of this city get for this $6 million a

department and ethics -- >> >> planning commission and we have ed ris kin here and christine who is the director of the municipal services and taxis and have an officer from the san francisco police department permit bureau. if you could go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing in progress. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and proceedings. please have conversations in the hallways. the rules are as follows representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. parties affiliated within these matters must be complete within that time and members of the public have three minutes to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board members who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to have a speaker card what you come to the podium. cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the left side of the podium. if you have a question please speak to board staff during a break or call the office tomorrow morning. we are located on davos avenue. this meeting is live on sfgtv and d.v.d's are avai

san francisco has done nothing less than give people a sense of worth and dignity. it has grown to giving meals to seniors as a full community center for 2300 multi-ethic seniors and families. when the white house had the conference on aging i urged them to listen to grass root activists in the community, and one of the people i asked them to listen to was my appointee to the conference chuck iayala and an advocate for seniors nationwide. [applause] okay. in the tradition of the great dolores jaurta and a living legend in our country chuck makes his voice heard from city hall -- mr. mayor you know that, to the white house to neighborhoods to the whole country and when a former president was threatening to privatize social security he organized the community and made his voice heard and prevented turning social security into a privatized gamble for our seniors. we all owe him a great debt of gratitude for saving that pillar of economic security. [applause] and he's doing that now with medicare, with medicare. i mentioned that dolores received the presidential medal of freedom and that day president obama recounted one of her mantras. she is always saying "don't wait to be i

ethics commission faish case. what records did he withhold. he withheld records that showed the relationship financially between the friends of the library and the san franciscoic library. constantly coming out at library commission meetings and other public functions, telling people that they gave 8.8 million to the branch library improvement program, and then having to disclose that 5.17 million of fact is wrong. to go to the government obligation bond oversight -- advisory committee, and present to them that 8.8 million was given is misrepresentation. it's one thing to simply ignore your responsibilities to monitor a group. it is another thing to go out and make public statements to the public, that are false, and you know are false, because you have absolutely nothing to support them. now, this is going to be referred to this board of supervisors, and i don't thinkyñ it's going to get here until next year and to be very honest i'm glad it's not(' getting here until next year because the integrity of this current board of supervisors leaves a lot to be desired. it's amazing how hard the exercise their first amendment rights under the constitution of the un