findings that the commission made and the procedure that the commission followed. i am proposing to the commissioners that mr. hemblig play that role. i think he is clearly a neutral in this. he has been here for all of it. he drafted large parts of this order and has in large part been following and closely tied to what has been going on here. any other views from my fellow commissioners? yes, mr. wagner? >> i also have some suggested changes to the finding of fact and recommendations. i can address that first. >> sure. >> in general i object to the overall language of the draft findings. i think that the document is very one-sided and doesn't mention for example that the commission unanimously rejected many, if not all of the contested factual allegations made by the mayor. for example, as to misuse of guns as to dissuasion and to page 4 where it says the commission denied the sheriff's request for subpoenas as to collateral issues and describe those issues and the issue was whether or not the major commited perjury and that is why we requested those subpoenas. th

what the commission did. e is not going to be the one to tell the board what they should do, i gather. >> is he providing legal advice to the board. he is acting as the board's lawyer, as well as the commission's lawyer. i don't know if that contradicts your statement. he is playing the same role for the board that he played for us. >> why is that? >> because that is what i was asked to do, to provide outside advice both to this commission and the board of supervisors on the process. >> if mr. hemblig is only planning on discussing process questions before the board, then we would withdraw the objection. but my understanding is that mr. hemblig or whoever is going to be representing the commission is -- i would presume -- going to be advocating for the commission's position. >> i guess that was not my understanding. my understanding is that we're going to have a different procedure than is typically occurs at the board. it would be a shorter presentation that would provide for the board what we did, timeline o

rather the commission and that is where i ended? finds that the evidence contained in miss lopez' video was more credible. >> thank you. >> i think my concern with a statement like that is its breadth. where sort of in one sentence making some broad statements about a lot of testimony. not sure that there w the sheriff and miss lopez said about the incident were not credible. and moreover, that is not really a finding of fact. what i think we have here are facts, things that we say happened, that we agreed happened. rather than weighing the credibility of one witness over the other. i think the vagueness of this is problematic to me. i would not for that. welcome to views of other commissioners. >> i agree with commissioner renne. i actually think we had quite a bit of discussion about the video, and i think it is important to understanding our recommendation or at least the recommendation of the majority. i do think it's important to understand why we found what we found and why we found it to be official misconduct and that was a

emblig present the commission's viewpoint. my view is that the safer, more conservative route would be to have someone other than mr. emblig do it, but we don't believe there is an actual conflict if he does. >> okay. thank you. mr. emblig? >> i just want to make one clarification for the record. i was not retained by the city attorney's office. i have two retention agreements, one with the ethics commission, one with the board of supervisors, both agreements were approved in public sessions by the respective commission and the board. both agreements did point out that i would be advising both the commission and the board. so this is not something new. this has been out there since the very beginning, even before the beginning of these proceedings. >> my concern with mr. sancroix doing the presentation is that he wasn't here for a lot of the hearings. he has many responsibilities, and in light of all of the resources devoted to this effort, could not attend every session. nor do i think he has really been reviewing the transcri

>> good evening, welcome to the regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. we will begin by taking the roll. 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 gon

alden. >> thank you, members of the commission. with regards to the decision and has been made so far, we have sustained insubordination, which is serious, and with the time card, with which the inspector put down two hours for a five minute conversation. in conversation with the chief and a chain of command, there are three options we would lay out as a department to the commission. in which option the commission picks depends on the factual findings. disobeying an order it is very serious. in some departments, he would get fired for that. depending on the severity, sometimes people do not receive a suspension. more importantly, with respect to the time card, one could view the time card as an act of dishonesty itself. the timecard reflects two hours. it never says, "i made a five minute phone call, but and climbing two hours -- am claiming two hours." if the commission believes that is dishonest, the department would ask that he be terminated. there is no place for a dishonest cop in this police department. if that happened here,

it should be argued that the ethics commission committed by mr. chatfield that it cannot hear any part of either of my cases. whether to dismiss the complaints or calendar a complaint on the full hearing of the merits. your agenda to indicate that the commission is going to deliberate this case is a pure conflict of interest. there are others. formerally task force member renne has recused himself when hearing richard mou case, because mr. mou had a case against mr. renne's wife. and similarly mr. renne's wife has been in several cases of laguna honda hospital. and her refusal to release form 990 tax statements. at the least mr. renne should follow the lead and recuse himself from this discussion. but what i am asking you is to take this off of your calendar [buzzer] and transfer the cases to another jurisdiction. so that there is not perceived or real conflict of interest. thank you. >> i am allen grossman. the commission and its vast decisions and actions must set the standard of ethical behavior. and conduct expected for those in san francisco.

the commission has received a great deal of evidence in this case. it has come from the mayor and has been unchallenged. the mayor presented nine witnesses to witness and britain have to marry. the sheriff -- through written testimony and witnesses. the sheriff has only chosen to cross-examine two of them. the facts are not difficult to understand in this case. i will go over them in a moment. but first, i want to address the law that the commission is going to have to apply and address specific questions that the commission has asked the pares

but it was my understanding that the commission -- commissioner walker was the president of the commission at the time. she obtained authority from the bic. i don't know if it was formal or it was just the consensus, that she would take the helm in terms of a director search. she worked with i believe three other department heads within the city, the director of public works, the chief administrative officer, and i believe the general manager of the puc. >> controller. >> yes, it was the same person. >> same person, different position, yes. >> so, president walker worked with those three city staff to develop the protocols, the search process. i think you hired or worked with a search firm. sent out solicitations, received qualifications and applications from candidates. and then i believe that group narrowed the field down to half a dozen potential candidates. at that point the building inspection commission met in closed session and interviewed each of the candidates from this narrowed field. the interviews were held off-site. its was properly noticed in accordance with all the various r

i talked to nicholas king from the entertainment commission. he told me if i get the approval today for the condition of years, they asked me to contact the sound inspector to come down and inspect the place and tell me what needed to be done. i would do whatever necessary to satisfy the sound inspector. if this thing stops here and those backward, everything goes back to square one. i have been working with the entertainment and planning for the past four-six months. they keep on delaying. i am running into hardship. without entertainment, my business is very slow. with entertainment, we have a lot of customers coming to enjoy the music and the evening. i need to get this approved today. as soon as this goes forward, i will go to the sound inspector and he will tell me what needs to be done. if they have a problem with me on the sound, i will cooperate with them. anything they want, i will do it. i cannot stop. and go backward. >> you are following the process you were asked to follow. thank you very much. commissioner sugaya: i think the issue

one option is for a member of the majority on the commission to draft thatlp. ubsequently, we could either simply adopt it as a summary -- we have summarized the proceedings previously without having to vote on them and ratify them. if this document is more in the form of an opinion, we would probably want to come back, have a look at it together in another special meeting, and then vote to adopt it. do my fellow commissioners have views as to which of these potential options for written summary or opinion would best suit the situation? commissioner renne: would it be sufficient to just transmits the transcript to our discussions and our determination, without anything else? chairperson hur: that could certainly be done. i think it makes the job of the board harder, because there is a lot more to read. anybody else? what do people think about the proposal? commissioner liu: that is what i was envisioning, but were you envisioning, in terms of a written summary, how we came out on the findings of fact? chairperson hur: i think we would want to explain to the boar

and what needs to be retained by the commission? o i don't think there is anything out of the ordinary or inappropriate in terms of that particular delegation power. and the one thing -- final thing i will say in terms of split appointments, i have become more skeptical of split appointments over time and frankly so have the voters. i think it was like 70-30. and one of the challenges that we have had is that these are not actually true split appointments, because the board can reject mayoral appointments, but the mayor can't reject the board's appointments. so what we do when we split appointments, at least in the way that we have done is that we give the board in significant ways the upper hand; and we saw one particular situation when the planning commission first got split. i don't know if anybody was on the board, who is currently on the board but where mayor brown nominated four people. the board made its three appointments and was going to confirm one of the four, so it would have a quorum on planning. and not confirm the othe

the commission has received a great deal of evidence in this case. f it has come from the mayor and has been unchallenged. the mayor presented nine witnesses to witness and britain have to marry. the sheriff -- through written testimony and witnesses. the sheriff has only chosen to cross-examine two of them. the facts are not difficult to understand in this case. i will go over them in a moment. but first, i want to address the law that the commission is going to have to apply and address specific questions that the commission has asked the parties to address in interpreting the charter. the legal basis for removal is met. the sheriff seems to argue that even if i acted wrongfully and terribly under the law, a technicality permits me to continue in office. that is not the case. i have prepared for the commission something akin to the jury instructions one might have before a civil trial. if i could prevent -- if i could ask my counsel to provide this to the other side as i provide a copy to the commission. >> you may want to zoom in on that a little b

even misstating with the claims that the commission voted to find mickami guilty of misconduct on two of the six charges and that of course, mr. bush wrote is not what happened. the commission dropped four immediately on the grounds that they were unproven and debated how to handle the two remaining charges. they did not sustain the mayor's charges. you all know that. and only one of you had the ethical wherewithal to vote no as did commissioner hur. commissioner hur stated, "if we do not find a nexus to the relationship of the duties, then we are opening this provision up to abuse and manipulation down the road in a way that we, we the voters, commissioner hur are really not going to like. you stated mr. hur you do not think it's is your job to determine mr. mirkarimi's level of efficacy going forward. you implored your fellow commissions to make a narrow and principal view of that clause that will enable those using it going forward to apply it in a consistent way. your report as written is not what you said on august 16th it would be. you have completely changed this draft summary

and that basically you vote unless you're excused by the commission. one thing where our life has changed. we now have a lot of electronic stuff. we have ipads and there's no use to restrict their use during the meeting. the board of supervisors have wrestled with this and decided not to impose a particular rule. it's something we need to be sensitive to. there are ways in which they can be abused and we need to be careful not to. i guess there are, if there's an incentive. there's a legal query. they can be discoverable if they were taking place during a meeting. so -- >> discoverable period. irrespective of a meeting or not. >> aren't they discoverable period? >> noreen ambrose, city attorney's office. if these are personal communications on your personal devices that they would not be public records and therefore on that basis, they would not be discoverable. but, the cautionary advice that the city attorney has given. the line between personal and public record is not very clear in the law, and that the biggest concern i think is that if you e-mail

rather the commission finds that the evidence contained in miss lopez' video was more credible. then as to finding 7, on page 5, add a clause at the end after "of his spouse," that says and the court imposed a sentence consistent with the march 12, 2012 plea agreement as reflected in paragraph 31 of the amended charges. on page 2, oh, okay. going backwards. i'm sorry. on page 4, line 1, add after the words "except the mayor," add the words, "and san diego chief of police william lansdowne." and finally i believe on page 2, the first sentence should be altered to read, "this matter presents for the first time -- no. this matter presents the first time that the ethics commission has provided a recommendation to the board of supervisors regarding charges of official misconduct under charter section 15-105. that is all i have got. >> one thing that we didn't include in there and i want to make sure that the commission is doing this affirmatively and not by omission. what is not included there is a statement adding what facts we found were not proven. while i have no particular objec

you probably should hold it for the entire commission. you can set that within a week, as commissioner renne suggested. but i don't think you need to hold that within a week. it may require scheduling and the rights of respondent. if you hear it anyway, and why sub it out and have it back and more comment and hearings. just deal with it. in general in this section, it largely turns on documents. [buzzer] and i note this is not 21-d or 21-e matter in the ordinance. it's a referral that is 30-c, when the task force has found anyone has violated any decision or act. it's a finding or mediation or something. but i don't know that taking this together that this body of law gives you the authority to order disclosure of records. or that you have the power to order anything that it's limited to record, and more broadly enforcement. let me conclude with a couple other things. >> you it turn it back on. >> the votes of three commissioners are required. what happens when you only have four commissioners present? does that mean that the matter dies?

alexander i know you served on the immigrant rights commission. i fortunately when you served on that and you're incredibly dedicated and knowledgable about immigrant communities. today my support stems from an applicant with specific experience in the arena that this seat is supposed to represent. thank you. we have a motion and we can do that without opposition. thank you. before i call the last three items, i did want to open up for public comment on items 7, 8, or 9. seeing no public comment for 7, 8, and 9, public comment is now closed. may i take a motion to convene into closed session? >> so moved. hold on. >> when i got up before -- before you go into closed session, i know that will be over with, then i can leave and go home and get back in bed. i have a concern about the item, it says legislation under the 30 day rule. >> chair kim: yes. so we do have legislation under the 30 day rule but that's not being heard today. that's under the 30 day hold for the public to view legislation but it's not being heard at committee so we therefore will

the commission recommended approval june 14th. while there had not been any opposition of the update up until monday, there were two speakers in opposition at the board hearing citing sea level rise. after public comment the board committee did recommend approval of this ordinance to the full board. they also heard an ordinance sponsored by mayor. board president chu and supervisors kim and wiener. this would change the threshold for the inclusional affordable housing programs, moving from five or more units back to ten or more . this is the companion ordinance to the housing trust fund and would only become effective if the voters approved the housing trust fund at this november's election. at committee this week both affordable housing advocates and housing builders spoke in support of the ordinance. at the hearing the board amended to make conforming amendments to another section. also to add in an evaluation component. where the city would look at the effect of this exemption on achieving our city's housing policies. this evalu

seeing none, the matter is with the commission. gardne>> you see what it takes n you have been given an order not to have entertainment, and you get caught doing entertainment, and when we do our reach, we learned something about the history, even though that particular venue, the lady has owned it for 30 years, so in my case, responsible owners is number one, because we have to learn. we do not start with all this knowledge, so i am glad we go through all this, but that area is very close to me because i party there a lot, -- partied there a lot, but there have been a lot of issues, and i hope they have done a good job so we will be coming over there to do some karaoke. i motion that we ground is permit. >> with stipulations? >> with stipulations that two guards and the video and also the good neighborhood policy, as you know. >> you are ok with those stipulations? >> is there a second mnemonic -- a second? >> i just want to say i have misgivings granting of permits. i had this the last time they came. i do not see this as a commun

i think two commission meetings ago we discussed -- sorry, the last commission meeting, we discussed firearms review board procedure, and we are currently looking at the dgo's that accompany that particular procedure, as well as we've had some discussion about the commissioners' role in it as well. and in understanding and trying to ferret out exactly the problems we think it would be helpful to have a presentation, not just to the commission but for the public to hear about exactly how that process works. sort of a tutorial on when that process is initiated, and for what reasons, and how the end result. so we'd like to schedule that. we're hopeful we can do it on -- i think october 17, that that time slot is available. and from there, it is not -- >> october 17, commissioner, will be in the district, the community meeting. >> october 10 and october 24, how are we on those days? >> good on those days. >> okay. >> commissioner turman: we want to give the department time enough to be able to prepare, with october 10. >> october 24 -- >> supervisor farrell: >> commissioner turman: would

in the agenda but are in the subject matter of the commission. the speaker shall address to the commission as a whole and not to individual commission. under the police commission rules of order during the public comment, commissioners are not to respond to the public or make a right of response. the police and personnel should refrain from entering into discussions during the public comment. please limit your comment to three minutes. >> public comments? >> san francisco, open government. on the overhead, i sent you the copy of the constitution of the united states which i feels compels to bring this to a commission meeting. members of the public who are listening, this is a copy of the current agenda and as you see, there it says as most city agendas do, know your rights under the sunshine ordinance. what we have here is an order of determination, dated march 1, 2011 against the police commission. and i will read it in part. findings of fact (inaudible) law, judging from the testimony and evidence presented (inaudible) comments to the commission