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 commission to determine whether those files are documents that must be disclose under state law. i can speak for the whistle blower program. >> miss herrick, did you review the documents in the possession that were maintained by the ethics commission related to this matter? >> i did not. and just in response to your... all of your questions, we did talk a bit about, apen disd3, 699-1 3a of the city charter which does make the city records confidential. and consistent with any advice that we would get from the san francis

when either a member of the ethics commission staff or even a member of the ethics commission is charged with a violation of one of the laws under your jurisdiction, that you find an outside entity to handle the investigation, rather than in the shoes of the executive director. but then, the complaint comes back to the commission ultimately to decide. i believe that the reason for that is, that these laws, that the complain of governmental conduct code and the city charters authoritieses the ethics commission to make the determinations not a body pointed by non-san francisco officials serving another city. some of that answers all of the questions that you were asking. >> and has there been occasion where all of it the entire case of it was just handled by a different agency because the respondent was the san francisco ethics commission. >> not that i am aware of, and so, but i would say is the ethics commission does not have the commission as a body or even any of the five of you, do not have a legal conflict that would prohibt you from ajudicating this kind of case. >> okay, thank you.

excuse me, the fund whistle blower complaint, isn't that an ethics issue? and that is exactly the way that i view it. it is. you are questioning the use of the gift fund, that is absolutely an ethics issue and it does come within the charter section c-no, c3.699-1 3a. and the other point that i would make is that in looking at the record that are protected under that charter section, you are looking at the underlying records, not the basis of the complaint that mr. menetshaw filed. although i was frankly, if the complaint that was being investigated had something to do with the public record, honestly i think that public records open meetings, those are all governmental transparency laws i think that they all come under the big umbrella of governmental ethics. but the point that i am really making is that the whistle blower, related to an issue that is protected under the charter section. >> miss herrick, i have a question with with respect to the application of 1040 d2? >> yes. >> one thing... what do you believe constitutes the necessity for preserving the

states that the ethics commiting shall investigate complaints under the section that alleged violations of local campaign finance lobbies and financial interest and government ethics laws, which commissioner hur pointed out. however, section 4.105 a, states. any person can file a complaint with the ethics commission alleging that a city officer or employee has engaged in improper activity by, again, violating campaign finance lobbying, conflicts of interest, or government ethics laws, regulations. the difference between them is that the complaints can be filed under 4.105 a. alleging many different violations of improper activities but under 4.105 d, not all of them are investigated pursuant to procedures in c3699-13. so the whole thing in my opinion is moot. . i believe that miss herrick, may have also have wrongly claimed that the california evidence code 1040, and its definition of official information, may have been misquoted and she may have incorrectly relied on deputy city attorney improper letter to the sunshine ordinance task force in which he wrongly combined two or three of d

sunshine task force to have on-going conversations with the director of the ethics commission when mr. pilpal is doing that in these rooms, this type of conflict of interest that is built into the con lusion, between the different city agencies is off the hook. since 1999, willie brown issued orders to every one of his documents and commissions not to comply with sunshine. i have been doing immediate disclosure requests across the departments in san francisco, none of the department heads have done the form 700 certification required by law and the whole city is out of order. to quote al pacino and go giants. >> hi there, i am one of the two whistle blowers, and from my perspective what i am asking for is actually not confidential investigatory information, what we wanted to know about is whether there was an administrative memo during the time that the ethics commission sat on our case for six months while the two of us were driven out of laguna honda ordering the whistle blower to not concurrently investigate the case. and in theory, according to your rules, the e

as you have heard, and as you may even have followed at the time, the ethics commission was extremely diligent in these proceedings, conducted many hearings, reviewed the testimony from many witnesses, additional documentary evidence, heard live testimony, made credibility determinations, received numerous rounds of briefing and very carefully considered the issues before it. it has already trod all of the ground that's being presented to you. it's considered the arguments that the sheriff is raising today, and it's already rejected them. you should reject them too, and you should sustain the charges of official misconduct. now, as chairperson hur was referencing a moment ago, the report and recommendation of the ethics commission based its findings and its recommendation mostly on the domestic violence conduct of the sheriff on the incident of new year's eve but also on his subsequent conviction and his sentence, a sentence by the way that is quite serious, a sentence to a day in the jail that he runs is sentence to three years of personal supervision by a probation officer next to t

and i want to thank and welcome the president of the ethics commission who is with us today. then we will hear from the two parties involved in this hearing. as the charging party, the mayor will go first with a presentation not to exceed 20 minutes. the sheriff will then make a presentation not to exceed 20 minutes. and then the mayor will have the opportunity to respond to the sheriff's presentation, with a response not to exceed five minutes. after the presentations by various parties, there will be time for public comment. each member of the public will have opportunity to speak if you so choose up to two minutes and that will be followed by deliberations by the board. as is our normal practice during presentations if colleagues wish to ask questions, they will hit the roster, i will recognize them in that order. the time for each party's presentation will be pause for questions and answers so parties will have full time for their presentations. i want to remind members of the public for the first rule of order at the board of supervisors. rule 1.1 states that persons in t

not to another agency like the san francisco ethics commission or the oakland ethics commission. >> okay. thank you. very much. >> and any other questions for miss herrick on this matter? >> no. i don't have any. >> 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 prac

the staff filling in for something the ethics commission apparently doesn't want to do itself? >> you would rather have us review the documents? is that your position? >> absolutely. >> you could use a hearing officer. >> sir, not i am going to hear from you. >> i am not going to hear from you, please, shut down. >> i want to object to one thing only. >> if i let you speak everybody has to speak. and we are not going to go forward with this. >> on that part of the voters we said that 6724 is part of the law of this county and you cannot just throw it out... >> can i make myself clear? >> no. >> i want an ethics commiting commissioner not a deposit city attorney to review those files i want you to look at those. >> could we turn off that mic? >> i would be prepared to make a motion along the lines of mr. gibner's suggestion if that reflects what you are suggesting >> miss herrick? >> yes. >> yes, i am. >> would you be willing to review the file that the correspondence file to determine whether there are any non-privileged documents there in? >> yes. >> thank you, very much. >> ri

to continue this, the ethics commission must show a compelling state interest. if you try to take what a member of the public says and their free speech is protected in its writing and its publication in the government document. mr. st. croix does not like what members of the public have to say, and wants to retain the ability to marginalize that free speech and substitute his own interpretation. that is viewpoint discrimination. it is what is specifically under the law not permitted. and mr. hur, you, tonight, made it very clear that you don't like what i say. and i have been before bodies before because i was questioning what they were doing or how they were doing it and they come back and they kind of make some short of speech argument which you did tonight, which did not even address what i was talking about. you just explained away your own behavior and you can sit there and smile all that you want, it is what you do. you don't like what members of the public have to say and you want to make sure that it does not actually make it into the record. and ask mr.

the ethics commission rejected the charges as drafted by the mayor.es not want you to consider is that of eliana lopez. he never bothered to talk toám r and prefer that you ignore her too. the allegation that she recanted is flatly contradicted by$-k her own statements. mayor lee never bothered to speak with her. in the second instance, ms. lopez has never denied that sheriff mirkarimi grabbed her arm. the advocates have been months they too have never listened to ms. lopez. defending her have been attacking her. victim. she's not an immigrant who violence. wants nothing more than justice. she wants justice for her family and she wants justice for the people ofiélx san francisco. after five months of hearings, you're left with a recommendation that, on its face, acknowledges it is al big with us. the agents commission, the majority says there's room for disagreement. but most importantly, the commission did not recommend that ross mirkarimi be removed from office. they explicitly discussed making such a recommendation to you and they rejected it. ulti

my understanding is that 699.13 refers to a number of areas that the ethics commission has the authority to investigate such as campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest and governmental ethics. doesn't this investigation relate to the commission's authority to investigate governmental ethics violations? >> my complaint, alleged that the records that i sought between ethics and the city controller on the laguna patient gift fund were being withheld. >> doesn't the laguna honda matter. why isn't that a investigation relating to governmental ethics? >> because it was an investigation about... i would frame it more that it was elder financial abuse and not ethics. it was a misappropriation of funds. it was not per se, about ethics. funds were misappropriated from a restricted use fund and was spent by staff and when the city controller finally was pushed into conducting an audit, $350,000 of that misappropriated funds was restored to patient use. it was more about financial issues, not about ethical issues. >> let me ask mr. shaw a question? >> sure. >> isn't part of your point that

it would be contrary to the voter's intent to enhance the ethical responsibilities of their public officials and hold them accountable to imply this two month free zone in between the election and taking the oath of office, where that elected official could do whatever he wanted with no consequences with his public position, until that moment when he walks up to the lectern and raises his hand. it also would lead to absurd results. an elected official could, for example, commit domestic violence on tuesday, and be safe from any official consequences. but if the oath of office is later that day, he couldn't do the same thing on wednesday. that's a completely arbitrary line. it makes no sense whatsoever. it's very different if you draw the line at the election. that makes perfect sense. once an official has been granted the voters trust, then he also has the ethical obligation to protect that trust by not committing official misconduct. there is no such sensible distinction drawn at the line of the election. and in fact, there is not a single case anywhere, in any jurisdiction, that overturns

i want to thank the ethics their countless hours of deliberation. , i want to thank and express my empathy with:0h&z ross and eliana and their family and theo. been through a]/f lot. ié+ in a city where we take domestic93 violence very seriously. we have law enforcement agencies that over the past severalgze decades have changed dramatically in how we respond to domestic violence. a lotdyí3h of that has come through great sacrifice and great activism. i think it was/6÷ back in 2000 that a young wom lost her life and <$ that's a stage for how the city responded in the future.o]>rm we take domestic violence more seriously because of people have loste%11m their lives and the city's come together around that. this; íc vote is certainly about how seriously we take domestic violence but it's alsoaah about democracy and due process. it's about keeping the publicw

intention of the voters. as ethics commission president hur stated the voters intended for this tool, this exceptional power of the mayor to be useful and narrow. while san francisco is surely a place that is different and operates to the beat of its own drum i challenge the idea that the voters of this city and county intended to set a precedent that ignore the fundamental tenet ofs of democracy by equipping the mayor with extraordinary capabilities. it would set a dangerous precedent to enable any mayor with such power that he or she could turn a executive -- into a political tactic. to apply this sector of the chart with disregard of the will of the voters and opens the door to allow the power of political machines to override the voice of the people. limited scope, i agree with commissioner hur in that charter section 15.105(e) was meant to be applied with a very limited scope and that the definition cites conduct that is job related. based on the findings of fact established by the ethics commission i don't see ho