studley? commissioner studley: i know that we have been working for quite a while on this and i begin with, i focus on the advantages for the public. what i found most compelling in the executive director's report were the way it allows public users of the system to get integrated information and not chopped-up information if for example, a committee goes from a small filer to one that is required to file electronically that they now would end up with all of the materials together and a variety of other ways in which it seemed like it would be positive for the public. that to me relates to the requirement that the amendment further the purposes of cfro which as we have just been reminded and i do mean reminded, not instructed for the first time, that that is the principal question that we have to ask. that leaves me in support of all the pieces. there is one thing that, i think that my question was, i asked a question, had a question as i was reading and then i believe it was answered, but i w

vice president studley: so moved. chair hur: it passes. the next item on the agenda is for section 1.126. mr. st. croix? >> when we have is to clarify some issues that have been raised dealing with the extent of the campaign finance reform and ornaments, and basically, many of the changes are technical in nature or are linguistic in nature. the one thing we wanted to do is to clarify when we are talking about the applicability is that it applies to an individual who holds city elective office in any committee controlled by the elected officer. and i am happy to -- not want chair hur: -- chair hur: any questions or comments from commissioners? this strikes me, again, as helpful amendments to clarify the purpose of 1.126, and to clarify it in terms of how it is applied. i think it is consistent with the goals and the intention of the voters. i welcome public comment on this. matter. >> commissioners, way, director of san francisco open government. is there ever a meeting where you are not revising cfro? is this not like rearranging chairs on

commissioner studley? vice president studley: no. i have a different point as long as we are looking at the findings, so if he wanted to conclude your point -- chair hur: that was the conclusion of my point. vice president studley: going back to a moment ago, this focuses on the staff burden of the current system, and in both number two and number four, and for me, this starting point is that the information is available more quickly and in a more usable format. it is there. it is and number four, .consistent with the comment i made a moment ago about the requirements of, at advancing the purposes, my suggestion may be as simple as changing number four to flip the two substantive elements of that sentence, to make the information publicly available in a shorter time frame and a more usable format and to conserve staff resources. i believe that is how it belongs. the commissioner -- is there any reason that would be -- >> i do not see that is a problem. chair hur: any problem with that? >> i think that is an excellent suggestion. chai

commissioner studley: give me a minute to think about it. one is that -- one strand is the automatic removal if the supervisors agreed with us. the first half to reach that, or fail to act within 30 days -- they first have to reach that, or fail to act within 30 days. but there were members of the public who said, and i found this -- it got me thinking in a variety of different ways when they said it is unfortunateq tht this has come this far. commissioner hayon said something similar. you do not see more of this because people take action. the resolve things with their supervisor, or they resign, or somebody works out something to protect the interest that is at stake. wheat, i think correctly, did not think we had the ability to try to negotiate a solution, but the supervisors might feel that they could. i am torn here. i am balancing several different things. i do believe there was, under these terms, official misconduct. i think the domestic violence issues raised here were serious, and the responsibilities of the sheriff for domestic vi

vice president studley: i think you just said one through five. chair hur: going back to the proposed amendment, is there a motion to adopt the changes from decisions 6, having already approved the changes in 135 subject to our two amendments? is there a motion to adopt a decision 0.6? vice president studley: so moved. chair hur: is there a second? we have public comment. the motion was made as to one through five. so we need a public comment. is there public comment on decision 0.6? hearing none, all in favor? opposed? no opposition. the motion passes. unanimously. the next item on the agenda is closed session. pursuant to the charter provision c 3.699-13, to discuss anticipated litigation of the plaintiffs. is there a motion to go into closed session? vice president studley: so moved. commissioner hayon: sd -- second. chair hur: public comment? >> ray. this is totally meaningless to any of the general public reading it. the description of each item is to be something that anybody of average intelligence can understand. there is nothing in here.

i will say one thing, in response to commissioner studley. you are right.the language is all over the place. it could be interpreted as the people wanting to be broad. one reason i think people did not want to be so broad is because the power it gives the mayor to suspend an elected official without pay while this entire process goes on, i think, is pretty in store -- pretty extraordinary. we might become more efficient, going forward, but it is still going to be disruptive. i want to protect future mayors and elected officials from a provision i am concerned will be too vague to be applied. but i think we have pretty much settled whether or not official misconduct occurred. i think the next thing we should discuss this is what our next recommendation should be, and whether the recommendation will include a request that the sheriff be removed from office or not. i am going to put you on the spot. is that within our purview, to make a recommendation of official misconduct and whether approval is appropriate or not? >> the charter says the ethics commission s