Im sorry, can you hand me that copy back . Never mind, i found what i was looking for. So you will recall that when i was here, in october, i testified that 1040 doesnt apply and i also testified quite strongly, both here and at the Sunshine Task force that c369913 doesnt apply either. I have been denied access to these records for two years. Regarding access to litigation states, advice and compliance with, analysis of, and opinion concerning liability under or any communication otherwise concerning the California Public records act the ralph m. Brown act, political reform act and San Francisco ethics code or this ordinance, are pay atection to this, are Public Records. Subject to disclosure. Notably, section 6253c of sippra gives agencies ten days to notify requesters, whether the requested records are exempt or disclosable and that if an agency fails to notify the requester in a timely fashion, it waives any applicable exemption. Now two years after i filed this records request, you
Having to do with inappropriate conduct. This committee had gone ahead and prosecuted her for those ethical violations under its powers to do so. And had entered into a stipulation with her giving her, and which she accepted certain putsv, which were the extent of what we could punish her for, for these particular violations. So, in that sense, then, our job was over in regard to ms. Ellis. The thought was at the time when we were doing this, and we had none of you all here, nobody was here. The thought when we were doing this, that in regard to these particular violations influencing a government decision, which the official has a financial benefit, thats a fairly egregious ethical breach and the thought was, and we had some discussion, i had mentioned it, this person by admitting these things has really admitted that she engaged in corrupt conduct and has disgraced herself and it would be unlikely that she would continue in San Francisco employment, that she would likely be fired. So
Introducing this resolution. I sat here tonight and ive listened to all of you and ive listened to the message that you sent. Its not just the message thats a powerful message. Its a tsunami in terms of who this woman is and in terms of what you think of her and in terms of her importance, particularly in the minority community. And in the black community ~. And i agree, based upon everything that youve said, that to go ahead and terminate ms. Ellis would be sending a terrible message to the city and county of san francisco, particularly to minority individuals who want to be part of Public Service in san francisco. It would be, it would be miss perceived and it would be underably misperceived. It would be misperceived in the way many of you said. So, in regard to there being some sort of hidden agenda or any sort of racism, van jones had it right. We stepped in it. Thats what happened. And i want to withdraw the resolution. [cheering and applauding] i think there is no objection from
Explore it, but when cost came into play and it made it cost prohibitive, that ultimately was the determinant of you not doing it, different than its just something as a policy we are not going to do. So, you did entertain it enough that it was an idea. Absolutely. Explore it and brought it back the commission engaged in a conversation and explored whether it was a policy decision. As i mentioned, its was not my call. I did Due Diligence and bring it to the commission for full discussion on whether they were willing to spend the funds to reconfigure to allow for that. And also weighed in on the City Attorneys judgment whether we were violating or abridging any public right of speech by not allowing to engage in Public Comment. And based on those factors of the commission took action not to allow that. And their recommendation was to allow for any of the presentations to be printed, copied, and made available at the back of the room for the public. So, again, we feel strongly that it do
Or employee from making a contract in which she has a financial interest. And then there was another one having to do with inappropriate conduct. This committee had gone ahead and prosecuted her for those ethical violations under its powers to do so. And had entered into a stipulation with her giving her, and which she accepted certain putsv, which were the extent of what we could punish her for, for these particular violations. So, in that sense, then, our job was over in regard to ms. Ellis. The thought was at the time when we were doing this, and we had none of you all here, nobody was here. The thought when we were doing this, that in regard to these particular violations influencing a government decision, which the official has a financial benefit, thats a fairly egregious ethical breach and the thought was, and we had some discussion, i had mentioned it, this person by admitting these things has really admitted that she engaged in corrupt conduct and has disgraced herself and it