you can either go the court or you can come to the ethics committee. and i heard your earlier statement about the only role that the ethics commission would have is that they would have to accept your finding as a matter of law and would just impose a penalty. no court -- if you said to enforce this determination there has been a violation, the judge might give some presumption to the agency, but he or she would make an independent judgment whether or not your determination was correct. coming up with some mechanism that would allow the determination to come before the ethics commission has and possibly in some kind of much more streamlined procedures so that it can be dealt with, i would never say that the commission cannot make its independent judgment as to if that determination is correct. >> let me stop you there. i think it would be productive for us to discuss what enforcement looks like. i think whether it should handle non-willful violation and willful violation, i view it as the most important issue. whether we should have a discussion about o

it was with the ethics commission. i never heard anything from the at this commission ever again about that case -- ethics commission ever again about that case. i did not hear about anything about their process, nothing about their procedure, what the hearings might be. hearings are no hearings, how it worked. absolutely nothing. the way they've treated the way i found out about the ethics commission's dismissal was by chance when i visited a sunshine taskforce meeting and heard a passing reference to a letter that the ethics commission had sent. i certainly hope that all that you consider from here forward will include considerations of how you provide the justice to the public. thank you. >> this is a statement. as i read it come at bear in mind, please, that it was delivered to me verbally by telephone before this meeting began. shortly before this meeting began. "i was on the sunshine or dance task force for 7.5 years and was a chair or vice chair of the ethics commission from 2002 to 2004. i am the only person eve

there are three different ways a case can come to the ethics commission. two are described in 67.34, and one is described in 67.35d. of course, there is also the task force power under 67.30c to send it to you for enforcement. 67.34 talks about a willful failure to do a duty under any of the public records or public meetings laws. that failure, that will fill failure is official misconduct, the finding of that. official misconduct is to find that in the charter as a certain level of behavior, and it also says that a finding of official misconduct anywhere else is an official misconduct under the section that gives you jurisdiction over official misconduct. there are 15 other places in the charter or official misconduct can be found. this is one of them, okay? that is a whole subset that is governed by a special set of rules, which you are going to deal with very soon. the second part of 67.34 deals with willful violations. that is different. it is focused on a violation of the ordinance, and that is a finding that can only be made by you under 67.34. ok? an

-- go to a court or go to the ethics commission, and the ethics commission and it whishes -- it does what it wishes to do at that point. i just, i don't see how you can read 67.34 as a limitation going to 67.35. >> if i could just jump in quickly -- >> could you please come to the microphone, for those who have hearing disabilities. >> i will. i apologize the public could not hear that. what i said was i agreed largely with what he eloquently described. i think it is 67.34 is not necessarily exclusive. it does not preclude the commission from handling broader matters. that is not to say -- there is ambiguity. you could certainly potentially read this as limiting the ethics commission to willful misconduct because of this phrase, "under this act." i think that is part of the reason this is so complicated, there is language that is ambiguous and potentially problematic. i think it can be read both ways. i think we would be implementing the purposes of the act more consistently under one reading vs. the other. >> so, i agree in part. i think we need more clarification. for me, 67.34 is

in the enforcement purely is to come from the ethics commission. the enforcement should be as it is, enforcement. if you find there is a violation that is brought to you, take it out of the sunshine ordnance and take it from any other part of the work that you do. you have the determination that comes forward, there is a recommendation for certain enforcement, either a penalty or a fine. that is what you would be concerned about, you wouldn't believe adjudicating it on the enforcement and, you can hear what the issues are prior to that. once you have determined it is a violation, you improve the enforcement. we are doing that work for you. we're doing the determination for you. that the ethics commission would provide the enforcement of the willful failure matters. at that point, there is no need to hear the entire merits of the case over again. because then if defeats the whole purpose of the process. and i think that we should move ahead with the knowledge and the way it is written in the law that the task force deals with the adjudication portion

reach a the ethics commission. as mentioned, the staff is not authorized an empowered to enforce those decisions. only the ethics commission can do that. it is the policy body that made those decisions, and the staff is simply staff. it has no in a or other authority if you can be given such authority to take the steps that it cut in the proposed regulations that were submitted in november of last year. it was pretty clear of the brown act that they couldn't do it, but i think it is also evident that it would have to be the case. and could not be otherwise. unless you have some disagreement with that position, that pretty much says what we have to say on it. >> i appreciate your comments, and as far as whether the commission has the authority to implement the regulations, we understand that we are the ones that make the decisions, staff provides recommendations, staff has done its best to serve that role as best they can, and i think they have given considerable analysis to it. i don't think it would be productive f

but they want the ethics commission to help that person obtained that information. that is the primary purpose. there are all kinds of ways city employees can violate the ordinance, and timing and not showing up at the meetings, but at the very bottom, the most basic thing is that the public its records and the public has access and public meetings. >> i'm very sensitive to that, and fully understand, but the goal here is to make sure the ordinance is complied with. i think now is a good time to move to the enforcement question. i think it is one where we have already had a lot of discussion. >> can i ask one question, mr. grossman? mr. grossman, you said from your point of view, that when the task force issued an order, when the complaints come to them, and the task force says the documents and public record should be produced, and it is not produced, that is a separate violation of the sunshine ordinance? >> a violation. >> how was it a violation? the violation is the failure to turn over the document that they have been ordered to produce. >> i'm willing to accept

it was with the ethics commission. i never heard anything from the at this commission ever again about that case -- ethics commission ever again about that case. i did not hear about anything about their process, nothing about their procedure, what the hearings might be. hearings are no hearings, how it worked. absolutely nothing. the way they've treated the way i found out about the ethics commission's dismissal was by chance when i visited a sunshine taskforce meeting and heard a passing reference to a letter that the ethics commission had sent. i certainly hope that all that you consider fr

if things require greater review, that could go to the ethics commission. thank you. >> good afternoon. let me say -- i want to thank you for getting together, finally. and attempting to work out your differences. you need to focus again on what the goal you are seeking to date is and that is getting citizens the right to public records. citizens having the ability to participate in open meetings. i was not here for the entire discussion. there were a couple of points that were mentioned. first of all, i do not think anyone from the task force has ever suggested that you would not have the ability to hear issues. the problem has been, you have never had -- i am sure you have read your grand jury report. i am sure that was one of the primary motivations of you having this joint meeting. no one is suggesting that you do not hear all the issues. what the public is asking the ethics commission to do is review the findings, the letters of determination by the task force, and determine if there is any merit. secondly, i heard a comment about the volume of cases. v

clerk: we would like to call this meeting of the ethics commission and to order. we will take the role. [reading roll] i would like to also introduce the council for the ethics commission in this matter. scott, from a law firm, sitting in the front there, and before we begin, there is an announcement that he would like to make. >> yes. in the spirit of full disclosure, i want to say that as the record will show, i was appointed as an ethics commissioner on february 8 of this year. prior to the time that i would be subject to the restrictions, insofar as campaign contributions. in late october, early november, with the opponents of it sheriff mirkarimi. and i made a contribution, as i recall, of about $100. i ensured the sheriff and the attorneys and the mayor's attorneys that the fact that i may have made that contribution, i will say that i have never met him either before or after that time, but the fact that i made that contribution, i approached this hearing totally with an open mind with no preconceived notions one way or another as to the way this hearing sho

i believe that the discussions go to that same thing for the ethics commission. what have you done to support the rights of citizens to ensure that they have the ability to participate in government and make public comment and what have you done to ensure that members of the public sunni public records are given the proper access to support that effort? if you can look back and say, well, the record is not that good, that is one of the main underpinnings for everything you were doing right now. if a citizen cannot come and speak openly and speak honestly and get the records they need to do so, then basically anybody who denies them that right is violating their oath of office and i think that that is something that unfortunately many city bodies do not take seriously. >> let me begin by saying that i came to the meetings in june of 2010 where these were last discussed. the fact that you are complementing yourself for almost 82 full years of spinning your wheels does not impress me that much. i i am a little shocked. there is this mass of garbage that ended up at t

it is not within the ethics commission's purview at all. it is part of this entire package, but not part of the legislation subject to the special amendment's role. i would just add that the universe of amendments that of gone back and forth that were initially made on february 28, 30 days ago, what ethics did was a subset of that. all those amendments have been out there for 30 days. supervisor kim: thank you. are there any further questions on this issue? supervisor wiener: i believe the only thing that ethics change from what we had was reverting to the original calculation for health funds are deposited. that is the current state of the law, right? it is no longer an amendment. what we sent back, we change the way the money is deposited into the fund. after that, the ethics commission went with reinstating the previous method of calculating the annual contribution of the fund, meaning that it is no longer an amendment. it is maintaining the current state of the law. is that right? ok. the 30-day rule would not apply to that. everything e

calling to order this meeting of the san francisco ethics commission on march 26, 2012. thank you all for being here. let me begin by calling the meeting to order and taking the roll. commissioner hayon? commissioner renne? let me note before we take public comment that matters related to the mayor's suspension of the sheriff that are the responsibility of the ethics commission will be handled and scheduled separately. they will begin with a preliminary hearing that will establish the rules and parameters for that process and the dates and times for those proceedings will be posted consistent with our usual advance notice requirements so, again, nothing tonight will relate to that topic but there will be public notice as soon as we have the dates arranged with the relevant players. so, thank you very much. let us -- let me return to the roll call and note that commissioners liu and chair hur have been excused for tonight. three members of the commission constitutes a quorum to proceed with business. let me start with public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on

the sunshine ordinance does not say that complaints must be court sustainable. ethics is formulating a requirement that has no basis in law and is on known to anyone. in regard to the 123-page memo from ethics, this shows an attempt to avoid dealing with complaints by focusing on whether a violation was willful. there is an easier way to address this. there is a requirement of commissioners, department heads, and program managers, to take periodic training. people signed a declaration under penalty of perjury. thus, if an employee complaint against has signed that document, it is possible that they have been negligent in their retraining, and have committed perjury by signing it. its ethics simply looked at whether the sworn statements are filed, that is an easier way to establish whether there was negligence and culpability on the part of the respondent. ethics approach now is a hybrid legalistic and will discourage complaints from being filed. these observations are coming from the only person ever to serve on both the sunshine or dance task force and the ethics comm

the gestapo. san francisco? you, ethics commission, have had many reports written about you, as have been stated today by those who monitor you. we monitor the deliberations very, very carefully. i know something about it and having worked for a liaison. i know something about the freedom of information act and your deliberations. what you have to do now is the ethical. many constituents have come here and said to your face, "i doubt you can be ethical." thank you very much. [applause] >> my name is -- king. i am the bishop of the orthodox church. i came without prepared words but a hard that is true to their real mix of what the san francisco community feels about ross mirkarimi, and i think it is time that the city comes together and close ranks to deal with issues that are pending that are so much more important than something i feel has been over stage. ross mirkarimi, i understand, as a provider for his family has been crippled. a city designed to protect his wife and child, then i think there're be more concerned abou

when the ethics commission heard the case jewel gomez, these were the headlines. the ethics panel reprimands lesbian library commissioner. sf mayor asked to remove library commission had. please fire president jewel gomez. and ethics to mayor, ethics commission begs mayor to enforce such an ordinance. as i mentioned in prior appearances here, the mayor was caught after the third making a full and threatening comments toward me because of my comments during public comment at the board meeting. it is pretty clear wheremayor -- where mayor ed lee stands on enforcement issues. if is a somewhat directly under their control, let them stay. otherwise, out a person goes. it is clear how the board of supervisors choose to handle the matter. they are cynically placed by the mayor by the ethics commission and how did it recommend removal. we have a mechanism in place for changing the results, it is a recall. we don't do public opinion polls. we don't do "i hate him, get hime out." we do a recall election and if people want him removed, that is out it goes. not by using a met

the ethical process- this is something that occurs in all societies, and if you can kind of sense this, it's something every single person in this room has been through. the process goes something like this: our patterns of action, our teaching, our upbringing create a sense of obligation- how should we act? and to go back to this interesting exchange we had here, it's confusing, because we get two different kinds of patterns, especially in a society like this. now religion may step in, whether it's christianity in our society predominantly or islam or buddhism or daoism, they may give you a different sense of obligation. nevertheless, following up on obligation comes responsibility- if you're obligated to do something, then you have the responsibility in order to act on that. but we find that for whatever reason- you know, whether we want to go theological and say it's simply original sin or we're just selfishness or, from an evolutionary point of view, it's survival of the fittest. nevertheless, the third step in this is dissonance- it's kind of the opposite of harmony. we do not liv

reach a the ethics commission. as mentioned, the staff is not authorized an empowered to enforce those decisions. only the ethics commission can do that. it is the policy body that made those decisions, and the staff is simply staff. it has no in a or other authority if you can be given such authority to take the steps that it cut

and the ethical dimension in israel. >> down through history, all people have struggled for land. in israel, however, the struggle takes on yet another dimension. somehow, the land is infused with the holy, and the quest for sovereignty, for political peace, is wrapped up in identity and relationship. in fact, as we talk to religious leaders, political leaders, and the average person on the street, we'll find out that sorting out this difficult and tangled issue over land is really the key to pce in israel in the future. in order to get a better understanding of land issues in israel, we were very fortunate to speak with dr. menachem lorberbaum at the hartman institute, where he's director of the center for jewish political thought. this center provides a voice of reason and passionate understanding in a society that is increasingly polarized by issues over land, religion, the ethical dimension, and its impact on society. >> well, the issue of land has been an issue for a century also in the zionist movement. first of all, sovereignty needs territory. sovereignty presumes territory

what we can expect as the battle moves to the ethics commission. the prostitution scandal involving the secret service is expanding again. the evening. it was a sound that was heard and rattled windows in two states. a loud explosion in the sky this morning. scientists say it was likely caused by a meteor. a flood of calls were made to law enforcement agencies. the explosions shook homes from reno to sacramento to bakersfield. many people reported seeing a fireball just before the explosion. >> while i was out your watering and i just looked up and i saw it blowing over like that. it was just beautiful, really big with a lot of color and then it just disappeared >> there was a vapor trail in the sky that you could see for a half-hour after words but other than that, that was hit. i had never seen anything like that before in my life >> and astronomer believes the meteor broke up somewhere over the sierra as southwest of reno. a pg&e memo just disclosed reveals the san bruno pipeline that exploded in 2010 had a history of failures. the 1989 document