>> commissioner studley? >> is there a rebuttal? >> there is a rebuttal. >> there is and i was going to say, i would like to speak to the procedural matter if you want to take the rebuttal first that is fine >> just quickly. >> i think that mr. warfield makes a good point and it appears to me that the sunshine referal does frame the case as the library users association against the san francisco arts commission. to the extent that does carry consequences i would be interested to hear from the staff whether there is why it is different from the way that it came from us. we may want to consider sending it back to track the task force referal. >> at the bottom of it, the enclosure it says peter warfield, kate patterson respondent. >> could you tell us, which document? >> the referal letter from the task force that says march 7, 2013. >> are you referring to the cclisting? >> correct, because this letter is to us. and the task force is ccing what presumably the people who are the complainant and the respondent. >> okay. >> and to me, it

. >> commissioner studley? >> in my view there was no violation here of 67.16 because the library commission included the 150-word statements in the minutes. and in my view, in the minutes includes both in the body of the minutes, and in the addendum. one thing that i pointed out the last time is to me, a numbered document from one to... >> it is not your free speech. >> excuse me mr. hartz i'm speaking. i think that we have raised two completely separate issues here. these complaints before us, relate to whether the inclusion of the 150-word statements in the minutes is a violation and we have to affirmatively find if we think that there was a violation. the commissioners may not all agree with me that the addendum is perfectly satisfactory way of accomplishing the statutory responsibilities. there is a separate issue that you commission have raced that is not before us and that is the responsibility of a city body that is required by law to maintain minutes. and under 67-16, the sunshine ordinance requires th

. >> commissioner studley. >> here. >> commissioner hur? >> here. >> and i would like to introduce our newest commissioner, brett andrews welcome. >> thank you. >> brett, perhaps you would like to introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about yourself. >> sure. so i have been here in san francisco for ten years. and i have been the executive director of positive resource center, at the mental health organization that provides benefits counseling and employment services. i have been active in the community at many different levels and i am just looking forward to participating in the ethics commission. over the years of having conversation around this type of work, what is very clear is that there is a lot of interest, and a lot of passion and a lot of knowledge. as i have talked to the commissioners and advocates it is important that we have respectful engagement and i suspect to be a bridge in that regard and i look forward to participating with the staff and the commission and the community >> we are looking forward as well. thank you

but if we are going to continue it, commissioner studley, i would not be in favor of our dealing with the merits today because the argument as to why it is necessary for her to be here is to cry to address the merits. and is the stipulation that you referred to mr. st. croix, in the record? is that? >> well it is part of the minute. >> well it is a public document that was sent on march 25th, the continuance is offered originally by chair person hur and then renewed by chair person hayon in the subsequent month. >> commissioner andrews? >> it is not recorded in minutes, however. so, if what we are suggesting that you might want to do if you do want to continue it is say to the september meeting but on the record make that motion that documentation will be required and no further continuances will be grapted. >> commissioner andrew? s >> i am thinking of both sides and i believe in one of the communications the complainant wanted an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent and there could be the situation where the complainant is here and none of the respondents are here and so then

. >> commissioner studley. >> here. >> commissioner hur? >> here. >> any public comments on matters on the agenda and not on the agenda. >> i am larry and we want to include the impact that the pending legislation will have on san francisco campaigning and reporting and that is timely now because we are going into an election season and if the legislation such as the disclose act pass its will have a direct impact on what it is that people are required to do here, and it will be good to have the ethics commission provide an update and this is similar to what the fpc does, and also i would note that los angeles ethics commission is participating directly in the conversations with the ftpc and the state on the california disclose act and offering their insights from their experience. and i would recommend that the san francisco ethics commission also participate in discussions so that they could have the benefit of your experience. thank you. >> thank you, mr. bush. >> i would just mention to the commission that we are spending the day with t

. >> i agree with you commissioner studley and there are lobbyist and there are lobbyists and the cartoon is of someone evil. but as you say, there are many public interest organizations that are lobbying for the issues that really >> at the federal level and the supreme court level and the state level, a lot of these, i think that there is a lot of conflict for, you know, laws that cross purposes. so, we have to keep that in mind. what i think that i will do with this item is that very soon that your proposal is going to be referred to us, for the comment and recommendation and i think that we can build a discussion on these issues into what is there and if we determine that it does not go far enough, we can pass that and continue to work on reforms of the commissioners want to say. and we will continue on that and we will see what we think needs to be either added to or altered in that proposal that will avoid some of these concerns. >> and as part of that, i think that it would be helpful to know that there are only 86 lobbyists and can we have a memo that sort of describes what each o

with the requirements of section 67.26 in making its redactions, and then i believe commissioner studley added without the proper or appropriate notice and justification. >> okay that is fine. >> public comment? >> commissioners ray hartz director of san francisco open government. i think that the important part of 67.26 reads as follows, information that is exempt from disclosured shall be masked in order that the non-exempt portion of the record may be released and keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the appropriate justification for withholding the required by section 67.27 of this article. i think that is pretty clear. and i like to point out another thing and nowhere in the sunshine ordinance task hearings, have we actually received anything to show what the city attorney said about this matter. is there any possibility that maybe the discussion was held and was very convoluted and miss patterson misunderstand what the city attorney said and or any possibility that someone might come over and to cover their back side and said that the attorney said it. nowhere have you got

. >> i have two comments, one, going to the commissioner studley, question, i think that the problem of going outside of this memo was other areas, and is because they are not listed on the agenda, we may, may have to put them down for a subsequent meeting. >> yeah. >> and for example, i do have something that the end one, we talk about the others, and the other possible things and i do have an item that i do want to add to bring up. but my original question was, addressed to the city attorney. is it right that what mr. bush said, that if there is a contribution made to a candidate when it becomes apparent that it was an improper contribution, either it was too much or it was solicited or that the employer gave the employee the money and the candidate just gives it back? or is he required to forfeit that to the city. >>vy to move my car and i just walked in and maybe my timing was just right. >> if a candidate has aced

is an item for this evening but it effects our future meetings and that is that commissioner jamie studley will be leaving us and tonight is her last meeting. because as she had informed us earlier she will not be here for the july meeting and then we have made a decision to cancel the august meeting because of the number of us will be traveling or out of town. so tonight, is her last evening, as a commissioner on the ethics commission and fairly memorable one at that. >> and i am sure. >> you will be missed greatly. >> i will miss everyone on the commission and the commission staff a great deal. >> but in the as much as we will miss you. >> and it is just it has been a rare pleasure and a rare honor to work with you and have you not only a member but a marvelous chair. and you know, i think that you have been a great leader and just so wise, wise and underline wise because you have this body of knowledge and this acute level of inquiry and insight in things and you have tried so hard to be thoughtful and fair and succeeded, well succeeded. and you bring to it also, not only thoughtfulness

. >> i have two comments, one, going to the commissioner studley, question, i think that the problem of going outside of this memo was other areas, and is because they are not listed on the agenda, we may, may have to put them down for a subsequent meeting. >> yeah. >> and for example, i do have something that the end one, we talk about the others, and the other possible things and i do have an item that i do want to add to bring up. but my original question was, addressed to

. >> commissioner studley? >> the reading refers to a determination about whether a document or information is public. that requires a legal determination, legal determination as i understand it is required by the city attorney by city charter has the responsibility for helping make a legal determination about whether it is public. and that is not, what the task force is determination. if it is public, the task force has the responsibility to help carry out its responsibility in the process to have it brought forward, made public. but, i see it is a little determination about whether it is public and in interpreting the rules about what is exempt and what is public. >> i think that at least for me, that may be where the answer comes in about this very tense and complicated understanding about what the responsibility of the city attorney and the elected charter defines the responsibility of the city attorney and the legal responsibilities of the task force. >> and that is probably a broader question that is mayb

>> commissioner studley? >> i am struggling with this issue about who the respondent is. and now, i'm confused. i recognized the gravity of the distinction as commissioner hur pointed out. and tried to think about the consequences related to whether the agency typically is or should be represented by whether it is custodian or the person who is in fact the custodian of the records and so i don't think that there is a situation given the responsibility that in this agency goes along with being the director of communication and it is not a stray, junior, and employee who showed up yesterday. and who in the parade of horribles that we heard is taking the rap for the you know, the delay and the alleged willful failure and keep the withholding to a minimum. that said i am not sure what to do with it. so i would appreciate hearing from the other commissioners in the staff whether they think that is in fact what we are doing here. or whether we are following the referal that we received even though the language has changed from the arts commission to respondent kate patterson of