st. croix and his staff, his deputy director, the entire ethics commission, i mean ethics department staff, more than likely had access to that file. they knew what was in that file. withholding it under misguided interpretation of 1040, and c3-699.13, all of that was willful. i think miss herrick made the recommendation that the material should be released, knowing that it was willfully withheld. that it existed in the file all along. and that had you, as commissioners, done an incamera review of the entire file enstead of just an incamera review of 20 pages after -- three months after you made your decision on october 22nd. you could have looked at that file incamera before october 22nd. and you may have none then that it was willfully withheld then and maybe you would have reached a different outcome when you considered my case. instead, mr. hur prejudiced the october 22nd hearing. which with all due respect, sir was willful prejudice. >> dr. derrick kerr again. another issue that comes up w

st. croix, can you make the announcements? >> finding of probable cause for ethics commission complaint 13-111013, at its regular meeting of january 28th, 2013, in the matter of ethics complaint 13-1103,the ethics commission made a determination that there is probably cause to believe the following violations of the san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code occurred and that the respondents committed them. one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 16 subsection a2 for reporting and receiving a loan to his candidate committee in excess of $120,000. two, one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 16, subsection c, for repaying aloan amount in excess of $120,000. 3 one violation of california government code section 81 104, subdivision a has incorporated into local law by san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 106 for not accurately reporting either the correct amount loan or the dat

st. croix and we'll see where we go. thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question. >> commissioner hayon. >> when you say there are things that you would like to get done, that you aren't to get done currently, what are some of these issues. >> we have two extremely competent investigators, but we could do more with more. right now we audit all candidates and random sampling of all candidates and eventually i think we should be able to audit every single candidate. auditing is one of the most effective tools we have, anti-corruption tools. and we want to continue to provide the services to the public in overseeing. the audits that we do right now are taking longer. we're trying to do more, but the mayoral audits, for example, we only had one real audit to do in the last mayoral election. and in this one we had a lot more and mayoral audits take longer than supervisorial audits, for example. we have gotten much better about giving out notices of fines, and other responses to infracti

st. croix that this is something that is overdue in regard to all city activities that allow for electronic use of things rather than get us out of the paper age, so that it is certainly a good idea. >> i have observation which of what must be a typo or a mistake. in regards to the attachment, and the form for the certificate of ethics training. that is involved and attached and this died and i believe that there is a mistake, in the first bullet point, where it says please review the following to determine when you must complete the training. it says if you are completing training in 2013 you must complete your ethics training within two years of your last training and here is where i think that the mistake is, for example, if you are satisfied in your training on march 3, 2013, you must complete another ethics training session by march second, 2014 and that is a contradiction. if it says that you have two years that should be, you must complete another ethics training session by march second

st. croix said, the matter would otherwise have been heard in closed session, but for the fact that the fppc had already issued a determination, and so, these are typically not, even when discussed among the commissioners, done so in, or with the public present and now if we want to discuss a change to that prior, whereby they are automatically calendar and we discuss one at every meeting we can do that. but, i think that that, that decision is for a separate time. and i think that today, we should focus on adjudicating the actual matter. >> madam chair? >> we will indeed, focus on adjudicating it and in fact, as i said, i intend to vote for the stimulation. but, i think that in regard to the procedures themselves, where we have a matter of such public significance, that shows a conflict of interest to this extent, that it should be something that routinely this commission will take up and that it will be calendared for discussion and that we do discuss it and we have the staff talk about it an

st. croix, can you respond to dr. kur's question about 6a? >> dr. kerr is absolutely correct the bar is now one commissioner member can calendar a complaint. i'm not sure why this copy went out, but it's typographical or an old copy, but it's one that has already been voted on and in effect. >> thank you. any other discussion from the commissioners on this agenda item? is there a motion to approve the changes to the regulations for investigations and enforcement proceedings? >> is moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? hearing none the motion passes. the next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on reports submitted by lisa herrick formerly of the san jose city attorney's office. as you will recall and was referenced previously, on october 22, 2012 we held a hearing on this matter relating to ethics complaints brought by mr. shaw. we also reviewed and considered paper submitted by mr. shaw and heard argument from mr. shaw on the matter. during that hearing, we asked miss herrick to review a number of determination

st. croix, where are we with the budget? >> you have a blessed evening. >> you too. >> so, for years particularly because the city financially was doing poorly, as was the statement, contrary, the directions from the mayor's budget office has always been all departments to find a certain percentage of cuts in the budget proposals. and the ethics commission, is a little bit unique in that we are an independent agency from the rest of the city, and we don't quite function in the same structure. and so, although we are politely acknowledged the budget instructions and we usually have declined to follow them in just submit a static budget of the same budget that we had the prior year. last year the commission decided that things have improved sufficiently enough that we should ask for a little bit more because we have the vacant positions that were vacant for a while. and so we did ask for a modest increase and that is what the commission adopted. following that, line, for this year, we did get a m

st. croix said that we were going to find ourselves in a unique situation, by discussing this publicly. i was not clear about that and it feels like, it feels like we should have some amount of participation on the front end that does not have us here. and i don't know what that is and i don't know, at what point that happens, but because it was a public hearing, at the fppc, is that right? >> yes. >> it was..., >> yes. >> it just feels like we are being backed into the corner of having to have a discussion that is either nice to have new, or late to the game, i don't understand the full process themselves and so would they be having this discussion, in public? or in private? they are hearing and we said that we will discuss this and typically in closed session. and somehow, they did. what if they discussed it in the closed session >> they discussed it in public session. >> i guess what i am struggling with, the moment that they do that, they immediately set some balls in motion for us that the

st. croix about why he forget that these emails were in the file. you should have been made aware of that, at least by last october 22nd. and it took miss herrick, in my humble opinion, the wrong jurisdiction to arrive at that conclusion for you. so i am encouraging you to release those emails. it's your ethical duty to do so and it's not your ethical duty to dream up a further exemption to withhold them any further. >> public comment on this matter? ? commissioners, ray hart, director san francisco open government. as i mentioned earlier, every agenda of every board and commission in this city has on its agenda know your rights under the sunshine ordinance. and yet it is really really a task to push that rock up the hill and get people to actually follow the law. for example, this body in my 150-word summaries, when i had four orders of derrillation from the sunshine ordinance task force, all of which were ignored until at some point somebody made a decision that my 150-word summaries would go into the minutes as required by law. there is no explan

st. croix would you like to introduce the matters? >> these are largely housekeeping matters in following up on the changes that the commission has already made. and are pretty straightforward and i think self-explanatory. >> there are three decision points. the first is shall the commission approve the addition of section 3d as set forth on page 3 of the enforcement regulations? the second is to approve the deletion of other references to the sunshine ordinance and the enforcement regulations. and the third is to change the definition of "business day" to comply with the sunshine regulations that we propagated previously. these seem to me to be pretty straightforward administrative changes. is there any discussion on these? anything from the city attorney? public comment on this item? >> [tkpwao-frpl/], my name is dr. derrick kur, my comment is not specific to the sunshine ordinance modifications, but does refer to section 6a of your enforcement guidelines. my recollection is that the ken civil grand jury when they did their report,

st. croix in terms of, without going into any individual matter that is something and has been referred to us, and as an ethical matter, and it was also determined that it was being looked at criminally, and this district attorney or someone, asked us wait, don't get in our way, that it would then be part of your process of putting it on the consent calendar for dismissal. i saw one of those, and my thought was that it might be better idea in those situations if when they can come up in the future if they come up in the future, but rather than just dismissing it, that we have some provision where we could just defer it to some period of time, because of the dismissal means that it goes away from our purview, and it may be that something is or starts out, or comes to us as an ethical matter, there st. croix sees that it is also being investigated by the criminal authorities by the district attorney. and the district attorney says that well, stay out of the way, which is quite appropriate that we

how about st. croix in the u.s. virgin island. sunny and 85 today out on the water.s angeles, the city of angels. a comfortable 75 degrees under blue skies. how about san francisco? live pictures of the golden gate show a sunny day. on this very day in 1933, construction began on that bridge. our very own associate producer says aloha from the north shore of oahu. jealous? don't worry, an arctic blast will be out later this week. i will volunteer to go to every one of those cities, and report to you, in the sake of good balance. >>> it felt like 9 below 0 at the start of the green bay packers/san francisco 49ers guy. game. we sent cnn's george howl out in the cold and outside of the iconic lambeau field in green bay where it is halftime right about now. and george, lambeau is known, of course, for hard core fans and frozen tundra. but this is pretty extreme. how are they coping? >> it is known for hard core cold as well, martin. we're talking about wind chill right now around negative 10. temperature, 4 degrees right now and dropping. people ask that question, though

a year later i did ironman 70.3 in st. croix and finished. winning is impossible but i finished a 70-mile exercise in self-discipline. when i went back to the doctor he said you've made your body like a 18-year-old inside and out. >> how much did you lose? >> 40 pounds. a chubby chef with a crooked spine and flat feet who could totally get away with it. it's not like girls weren't attracted to me or anything -- there was any down side other than health. if i could do it surrounded by all that food and wine, anyone can do it. i am surrounded by the most delicious food available on the planet every day of my life. if i can do it, anyone can do it. >> well, i have tasted your stuff. and i'm going to do it. that's how much of a passion i have for what you do. >> i love it. you'll lose up to a pound a day if you follow my instructions. >> okay. my next guest lost 245 pounds. you probably know how he did it. he only ate subway sandwiches. jared fogle is the subway guy and joins me now. how are you? >> i'm doing great, piers. how are you? >> you're

and tune in for your chance to win a luxury trip to st. croix. all next on "live."e by isney-abc domestic television] announcer: now here are kelly ripa and michael strahan! [cheers and applause] ♪ kelly: thank you, thank you so mu