On Charles Stella with friends of ethics. We have been in discussions with board president on the question of the whistleblower amendment. Theyve asked for some guidance in our opinion on how to organize the hearing. So, i will send the Commission Executive director a brief memo on that so that she will see what we have suggested. Commissioner board of i think i have to warm up herems. Breed and her staff and they were actually talking about generating a bit of a crowd or notifying the public in general, which we can implead you for thatfor you but you have your own contacts with as well. But there was some thought by the board that this should attract some interest on the part of the labor and City Employee groups so that is what i thought was. So, i did one you let you know if anything comes up with a we need to bring it up with you or bring back to you we will. The tech thank you. Thank you. Premise of the Ethics Commission a director of San Francisco opened up limited where youre aware of it or not to complain about with this commission in may as artie been dismissed. When i filed actually in april authority dismissed and the one i filed inmate was investigated for two whole days before they dismissed it. It was done by the person i told you when i went in november dissuaded me from trying to filing the complaint in the first place and so i think she was totally prejudiced against them. There is no impartiality whatsoever. The socalled investigations or something i completely understand. The sole purpose was to dismiss the complaint and deny me a public hearing. A public hearing would result in serious consequences for both supervisor mark farrell and the San FranciscoPublic Library in particular, luis herrera the city librarian. As far as mark farrell goes, you know very well he would never have shown up to a hearing. That looking for you, certainly. In fact, he probably wouldve found his nose at you just as he did the Sunshine Ordinance Task force and not even sending someone to their hearings. While embarrassing for you, you be very instructive to the citizens of San Francisco that while you may be able to bully noncity persons or groups, city agencies treat you as the joke you are. Neither the mayor, the board of supervisors, or any city agency would even deign to reply to your findings let alone enforce them. This body is a meaningless farce. When you voted unanimously to remove tool , etc. President of the Library Commission, the mayor ignored you. When you send a letter to him a year later asking what was the result of your recommendation, he ignored you. So, you are fully aware of the fact that you are absolutely powerless. Theres an old southern expression in that expression is, uselessness tips on a [inaudible] on. Basically thats what this has come to. You are being here during the entire time, all this corruption has erupted in San Francisco and the lack of action on your part related to any city officials is part and parcel of why the city has turned into a cesspool. Thank you. Item 3, we have reversed the order. There usually is item 3 is a discussion of possible action on draft minutes of the commissions may 23rd 2016 a regular meeting. Any the commissioners have any comments or corrections to the minutes . Any Public Comment . This is agenda item for . We have not got to item for you. Thank you. No, three. All right. On page six, it refers to my invitation to supervisor farrell to appear before the commission. I think you might want to correct the wording to indicate the commission had been encouraging the supervisor to appear before the commission. Obviously, its not my discretion to do so but, i was pointing out my frustration with the fact that today he had not appeared. Any other corrections . Commissioners open government. I would like anybody in this room or watching on sfgov tv . Reviewing these minutes of notice on the only citizen in San Francisco whos constitutionally protected political free speech actually makes it into the minutes in any meaningful fashion. Citizens united this up in court wrote, by taking the rights of two speak from some and giving it to others the government deprives the disadvantage person or class of the right to use speech ascribed to establish were standing, and respect for the speakers voice. The government may not by these means deprives the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself, what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker and the idea that flows therefrom. This body is desirous of producing an orwellian 1984 new speed record with comments from others, with comments from other speakers, especially those voicing criticism being reduced to meaningless misrepresentation. You should be ashamed. I had to fight for four years to get these 150 word summary 7 minutes because i was tired of having people bastardize and mischaracterize and doubt outright lied when i said in Public Comment. This is constitutionally protected free speech. These peoples, mine, yours, anybody elses and the fact that you want to have a really good looking record that makes you look like youre nothing but good people who do nothing but good and you want to keep anything negative out of it which is a direct violation of the sunshine begins which you have a legal obligation to enforce is unconscionable. You know, theres an old expression entire to explain to man that he should understand something when not understanding it is the basis of them keeping his job. Do you have any corrections to the minutes . Okay. Do i hear a motion . Motion to approve moved and seconded. All those in favor say, aye [chorus of ayes] the Motion Carried Unanimously and the minutes are approved with the correction noted by one of the speakers. Turning to item 4, this question and possible action including potential waiver of atty. Client privilege regarding Public Records act request for the audio recording of Ethics Commission closed session held on june 23, 2014 regarding onto item 6. I believe that the request was made by mr. Grossman and i will give you 3 min. To hear what you have to say call all of 3 min. All how exciting i dont people take you that long, will it be one with only 3 min. For my comments i will repeat most of what is in my memorandum. Hopefully you have already and considered how much you have to ponder. The facts are,pretty clear. For a year now for the former executive director and the City Attorney hijacked and kept secret from the Commission Eight legally required open process. They intentionally provoked a lawsuit, mind, which they defended at and appealed without Commission Authorization until it reached the appellate court. At which point, there was no turning back. So, it was only then, after this year and half of all this activity, including for hearings before the sunshine ordinance past that there was a single 55 min. Closed session regarding three agenda items including the one at issue here. Following which, the commissioners voted to keep the City Attorneys advice secret, whatever that was. Which meant they decided to keep secret their views on litigation whose defense an appeal they never authorized with regard to records they had never seen. The 1999 sunshine ordinance was on the ballot by Voters Initiative and was adopted by the same majority vote is required for hr amendment. California citizens Public Access rights to the governments records and meetings are constitutionally guaranteed. So, now this commission is at another crossroads. Does it continue to violate its own bylaws . Does it continue to undermine as a charter designated, the charter designated enforcement body for Public Access, and whose interest it really protecting . The former executive director . The City Attorney . Or possibly some of the commissioners . Californias Public Policy is that this is the public best interest, these disclosures. At law school, i was taught and still believe if theres a relevant statute thats where you go first, to analyze the legal issue. Here, the sunshine ordinance is absolutely clear on the two legal issues presented. There is the status of the existing legation on june 23, 2014, satisfy the requirements of section 6710d. If it did not, for the reasons stated,it did not im sorry good for the reasons stated in my mentoring him. As the passage of time obviated any need to keep the audio recording secret, per section 67 8. 18, the answer is, yes. My memorandum demonstrates. I actually have some further thoughts, but 3 min. Is kind of limited. Thank you. All right, the staff has any comments or the City Attorney have any comments on this request . Any discussion on the commissioners . Is there a motion to grant mr. Grossmans request or a copy of the transcript . I have no objection, frankly to the transcript being released andbut when the question first came up i said its a commission decision, not mine. I guess my question is, why are we still dealing with this . My question is, after all this time, including the litigation, why are we still doing with this other than that, mr. Grossman once a record of the hearing certainly, i dont know theres anything there that needs to be withheld. I can answer that. Its a black box. Its been a black box from the first day i submitted my request in october of 2012. We are talking the better part of four years, here. Almost 4 years and theres been no meeting at which there was a clear discussion about why it was started, who supported it, whether the City Attorney encouraged it, given the City Attorneys attitude. Theres a lot of reasons why this case is a really bad case. My memo explains it. The City Attorney now is free to advise the department, the commissions, the officials on Public Record and Public Meeting matters secretly. It encourage them on how to defeat request for records. Were handles [inaudible] that they dont like. Sorry. Does the City Attorney have any opinion on this that it wants to share with the Commission Regarding mr. Grossmans request one debbie City Attorney and ocean. No, i have nothing else to add as a staff memo explains, this is a decision within the commissions discretion. I move we release the audio recording. Second. Any further discussion . Let me just clarify for mr. Grossman, the concerned that the commission had was that the decision that was made to the attorneyclient privilege was made by the executive director. Which the City Attorney had said was properly within his discretion and not a matter for the commission. In fact, theres an item on tonight agenda to deal with that very issue because the bylaws are unclear about it. But the transcript will show what the commission was concerned about in the meeting was whether or not we should, as a commission, should of that some participation in the withholding of the documents. Notyou filed the lawsuit and you lost in the appeal court and it isnt the City Attorney who off on a frolic it is the court of appeals that said that the City Attorney was correct. Its interpretation of the charter. Even though the task force, the Sunshine Task force may be unhappy about the fact that attorneyclient privilege exists in a records request, thats the law. So,but i have no objection to letting you look at that for letting the public look at the transcript of our discussion. Thank you. I have some more thoughts about wait for them for another time. Any public discussion on the motion . Braveheart director of San Francisco . President James Madison wrote the following the genius of our public and liberty seems to demand not only that all power should be derived from the people but the those entrusted with it should be kept in dependent on the people. Mr. Grossmans request that the bodyweight the attorneyclient privilege and release the recording of the closed session is both reasonable and justified. This body does more to hide its activities from the public than any other was meetings i have attended. Only through the actions of individuals citizens our bodies such as this hell do any level of accountability. This body has shown by his behaviors to be totally unwilling and or unable to enforce open government laws. The very least they can do is to disclose to the public and confidentiality is no longer required the secret machinations connected out of the viewer the public could show you have some sense of integrity. The bottom line is, government is supposed to be held with participation of and in full view of the public. You spend so much of your time going back in a back room and having discussions, which you expect the public to take just on your words to have nothing to do with anything that cant be disclosed or shouldnt be disclosed. I have always had a hard time believing that anybody could go back for 45 min. Or an hour and have a discussion and never say a single thing that couldnt be disclosed. I think its disingenuous and seeding of the public to pretend there is. Very frankly, i think most of what you want to hide in those conversations is the fact that youre doing something wrong and you dont want the public to know why you are doing it. You are making deals with people like mark farrell the president a member of the board of supervisors who owes you a ton of money. Instead of being open and telling the public what you are doing as you go along, you just click on this thing and i think its because the executive director the former executive director of the bit so badly that you just dont want to let anybody know how badly you and by extension day, screwed up. Mr. Hart did you hear with the motion was a up here . Any other public discussion . Good evening. The longer member of the customers i dont think i need to use the disclaimer. I am not sure how i would vote on this motion. I understand from your discussion that you believe theres information that may be in the Public Interest to disclose. This is the first time i can recall that there is a request for a close session tape or information from a closed session that policy body is considering releasing. So i am not sure that this would set any sort of precedent. I think this is just a onetime request but i would ask you to be very careful and thoughtful about doing with this request. Generally, closed session matters and discussion are kept between the attorney, the staff, and the members of the policy body. So, its unusual in my experience for such a request to come and i would just ask you again to be careful about what this means for the city Going Forward if you choose to make this information available. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening commissioners good im dr. Dara kerr whistleblower. I am very grateful to mr. Grossman for his years of Public Interest litigation in this sunshine arena. His request for the close session records gives you an opportunity to get closer to the public. Theres a barrier which is unnecessary and artificial, and this particular recording is one of them. So, i hope that you take the opportunity to get closer to us. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . I will call the question. All those in favor say, aye [chorus of ayes] opposed . The motion to waive the attorneyclient privilege of the transcript is granted. Is past and the document will be released to the public. Turning to item number five, continued discussion and possible action on proposal regarding a possible november 2016 ballot measure to restrict lobbyist gifts, Campaign Contributions, and bundling contributions. I will turn to the staff for their initial discussion. Good evening commissioners. Under item 5, and on the table for the public by the staff memo dated june 22 and attachments. We took the last month since the commissions meeting and most recently discussion of the issues to put together a bit more of a legislative record, and also to work with the City Attorney on putting together language in an Initiative One ordinance to see and consider discussing issues and heavy ops option to act on the proposal if you want to this even get that was something you had requested last month. The was a number of Public Comments were received over the weekend and today. Those are also on the public table and then provided to you. I expect will have a fair amount of Public Comment on the proposals. Just in brief, there isthe memo describes the findings and the recommendations with regard to including some language in the proposal that would speak to the findings that the proposals as an underlying matter, i dressed. Also, it would add some mileage about the ability to amend based on approach taken with pop c that would allow for the measure to be amended down the road should the commission feel that was necessary and that was in furtherance of the ordinance that is approved so that provide flexibility without having to go back to the voters each time of the was strengthening or clarifying issues that need to take place. The gift limitation takes a look at restricting as the proponents have suggested, the gi