. >> 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 practice, the past example involving the deputy director, where we did seek counsel from others so that it would not be a staff colleague doing the investigation, but this body handled it.

commissioner studley. >> if we keep it, i think that is a reasonable addition. i am trying to think whether we need that provision at all. in order to make it possible for the public to pursue their or stand up for the position that they have taken, that they want these records. since we will already have something from the task force. explaining the more technical side of it. i would be interested if the public thinks we need ts in order to let the people run the string of steps they are entitled to. or preclude someone's capacity to put the issues before us. if they didn't think so, we could take the whole thing out. and see if there is a problem by adding representative. alternatively we can do this, and say this is a model. but i think it's easier to add than subtract it. i would like to hear whether people have seen people bring these forward think it's a necessary idea with the amendment you have talked about or not. >> i think that too is a good idea. commissioner hayon. >> my question is why wouldn't we expect that the original complainant and respondent

i am telling you, you will. >> commissioner studley, if that changes your view as to whether i should be adjudicated then i would listen very carefully for your opinion. >> all that i can say that in any given moment, i know, my own consideration of a matter, whether it is a policy matter or a legal determination, i read a piece, and i have a view of the piece and i read the other piece from the other side and i read the opposition and the reply brief and i read the memo in support and i read my ballot initiative and i think that sounds compelling until i read the other piece and i say i didn't think about that, yet, now i need to rethink it. so, i think the question is, any commissioner's open mind as to the total set of legal presentation argument and public comment that comes before us and that our obligation is to take that all in to account not that one piece of the evidence led us to think one way about an issue or, you know, i think that e-mail is again, it is something that i am glad that you opened, and i appreciate and i respect your doing that, because i think that it is us

. >> commissioner studley. >> i think on a cost benefit basis, it's a lot of effort and energy by us. by these folks. i don't think that $5,000 is going to change behavior. i think if there are places where it's appropriate to have individual penalties that suit the circumstances. i agree with commissioner renne, that may be a tool we may want to have available. individually for severe cases. if we are going to go to the trouble, i would rather explore the idea of whether we could put a hold on a more substantial amount. that would pause funding to the agency, which would be more attention getting than $5,000. and that may be far too complicated to do. but it seems to me we would be matching the frustration with the action of something that might get attention in the agency. now if it's not your first 5,000 and multiples of 5,000. then you start to have a problem. and then maybe on people's radar. so. if i expand my mind to picture rec rec rec recidism then maybe so. >> i think that a small amount would have an effect. especially with tight budgets, every amount will count. the questi

. >> commissioner studley. >> i was going to suggest that if i understand where you are heading, that we not make changes now. because we would have to follow through all of implications. but that we create a list of issues that we want to talk to the sunshine task force about when they are able to meet again. and see if they, just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. or that we shouldn't have a home for it. but i think it's more important that we get as far as we can with this tonight. and flag that later. it doesn't stop anybody from doing anything they want to. it doesn't foreclose any opportunity to bring something to us from the task force or that came through that procedure. maybe we should put it on what my organization calls a bike rack, and understand that we want to check that through again. ideally when the task force is able to consult with us on it. but that we not try to do something now in one place that might be more complicated than we realize. that would be me -- my thought. >> i think that's a good suggestion on something that far-reaching. garr

the majority consisted of commissioner studley, vice chair studley, commissioners lu, reny and han. they determined the the conduct fell below the standard of decency and good faith in action required of all public officers. the majority did not find credible the sheriff's and ms. lopez's accounts of the incident on december 31, and found the conduct relates to the duties of office because the sheriff is the top law enforcement officer and also responsible for handling domestic violence programs within the county. now the commission believed -- the majority believed that while there was some room for debate as to whether this conduct or decency clause is limited by the relations to the duties clause, they found that it didn't matter. ultimately whether or not the decency clause is related to the duties of office in this case official misconduct had been shown. now, i've looked at this charter provision quite a bit so when i say things like conduct, clause, and decency clause, they mean something. perhaps -- not sure how much you all have looked at it. so i am going to borrow a defin

commissioner studley. >> here. >> hayon. >> here. >> renne. >> here. >> commissioner liu has an excused absence. the first item on the agenda are items appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction. >> good evening, i am larry bush, i write for city report. earlier this month i asked for the staff to provide a list of those people that have not filed their form 7. i have that list for you now. this is about 30 san francisco officials by the end of august had not filed form 700. some people are including vice chair of development authority as well as all three members of the bond oversight committee. which as you know is the committee that monitors several billion dollars in funding. when i asked what actions had been taken to provide fines or what have you for people that not filed. that are due on april 1. i was told in writing that due to a lack of resources, there were no fine letters going out this year, and none had gone out last year. i talked to the fcpc, and they said they had fined some san francisco officials themselves for failing to file. some of

. >> commissioner studley has an excused absence today. our first order of business is consideration of the draft findings and legal justifications for the commission's decision on august 16th, 2012. we have posted and circulated a written document that summarizes what was done on the 16th. thanks to commissioner liu for playing a significant part in putting this document together. before we begin, one issue i think should be made clear, there seems to have about some confusion about whether or not the commission would provide some recommendation as to what the effect of the recommendation of official misconduct should be. having reviewed the transcript and certainly my personal understanding of what we decided on the 16th was that there was no need to provide any explanation for suggestion of what the affect of a recommendation of official misconduct would be. because the charter clearly states that if there is a finding of official misconduct, then the person found to have committed official misconduct shall be removed from office. so it

two commissionary studley's question. we went over this in the april meeting. it was clear in the ordinance that there are two ways, pathways that the task force can ask for enforcement. one is through the willful failure misconduct path. and the other path it can choose any other appropriate entity, city agency or what have you, to provide enforcement. but to your additional question with regards to supervisor of records, in 6721-d, it states that the -- if the custodian refuses or failed to comply, the supervisor of record shall notify the district of attorney or general to be sure they ensure compliance with the provisions of the ordinance. it's a shall. and specific only to public records disclosure. that's in the ordinance and has been in the ordinance. but the task force, that's for the supervisor of records. for the task force it has the additional ability to take it to any other body that would be appropriate. thank you. >> david pellpal. i already spoke, and i want to point out there are two items "l" in the definition. thanks. >> good for you. >> good

i will let miss herrick speak to it but i could answer your question more generally commissioner studley. i do not advise the whiesle blower program on sunshine issues there are other lawyers that do that. nor am i familiar with the process for reviewing files in response to the sunshine requests. or advice to the ethics commission when they receive a request for materials related to a complaint that involves, conflicts lobbying campaign finance and gofmal ethics is to review the entire file and determine whether any documents in it are must be disclosed under state law. and that is what the ethics commission does. so i think and i hope that answers part of your question. the second part and maybe this responds, is when the ethics commission investigates allegations of sunshine allegations involving other departments, they may, depending on the discorrection of the investigate or to review the documents that were not disclosed in order to determine what to do and how to proceed in their investigation. i think in this case, miss herrick could seek to review the files of the ethics commiss

liu or studley do you have other things that you wanted to add? i think that we should. >> sort of working my way forward here. >> okay. >> commissioner liu? >> thank you. i mean that i think that mr. shaw and miss johnson raised some good points about perception issues on whether we should be considering this at all or whether the entirety of these two complaints should go to be determined by a different body altogether. so i guess i would put it maybe a question to the city attorney's office about where the parameter of the perceived conflict of interest in how it came to be that we received a recommendation from a different body, but then it would come back to the members for a determination, the ultimate determination, or how has that worked in the past, so if you could educate us on that, that would be great. >> and to the extent that there was reference to public comment to a previous matter involving staff, if you know the specifics of that one. >> sure. >> it would be helpful. >> i can't actually speak to what happened in this case because

if so are ethics commissioners studley and han saying anything different from what commissioner reneents so diluted that it amounts to no requirements at all, exactly what mr. rene suggested. and if that is correct, does it not follow that all four commissioners are interpreting san francisco's official misconduct statute in a way that leaves it completely unconstitutionally vague. by making up rules of misconduct proceedings against ross as they went along, the ethics commission appears to have vield the city charter themselves by chersing an authority not;%.f-3 granted by the charter. they do not have my authority to take away my vote. reinstate -state wúw wj4(p&c"p% >> president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you. my name is author murillo. good afternoon, mr. president and honorable members of the board of supervisors. what i would like to do is offer a lens through which to view this situation. you've heard from many citizens that there's been unequal why is that? is this political? perhaps )]'s another reason. as someone who studied they have on people of col

. >> it was not her position to raise that type of commission commissioner studley, if anyone wanted to use it should have been the controller or the ethics commission. it should not have been an independent, so-called independent reviewer coming up with that citation, after the fact. i am going to repeat myself. i don't believe that you should be hearing this case. and i'm asking you again, to transfer it to the oakland ethics commission. thank you. >> as a matter of record, i'm not even clear that the oakland ethics commission is operational and i think that they have been disbanded or suspended in light of lack of funding. miss herrick, we invite your response and thank you for being on the phone with us. >> certainly. i'm happy to answer any specific questions. there were other things that mr. shaw pointed out, i think that i have responded to the bulk of them. no, no. let me say this. there was a question from one of the commissioners, and i apologize since i am not personally there i cannot track you as well as i could have as if i were personally present. but i do, there was a