Francisco Ethics Commission [ gavel ] good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the regular meeting of the San FranciscoEthics Commission for september 26, 2016. Before i turn to the agenda, i want to take the pleasure of introducing our newest commissioner, a man who i think is known to many of us in San Francisco who has lived here for a long time. The man who has devoted his life to public service. We are honored that hes willing to seven on the Ethics Commission. Quentin kopp. Thank you very much. Its a pleasure to be with you and vice commissioner keane. I have known judge kopp for more than 45 years. As a supervisor in the city and county of San Francisco. And a judge and things like the state bar. Judge kopp and i were involved at the state bar. He was indeed a tremendous main stay in terms of protecting the integrity of the political system in San Francisco and we are really blessed by having him as an asset as a membership. Quentin, i couldnt be more delighted. Im grateful. I have one call to order and roll call. Commissioner hayon has been excused. Vicechair commissioner keane . Here. Commissioner chiu, here. Commissioner kopp, here. All present and accounted for. For purposes of the public being aware. The item 11 has been continued to october 21, 2016. Mr. Chairman, excuse me, commissioners, please put the microphone in front of your mouth when you are speaking. Thank you. I am going to be in new york city october 24th. And i would like to be present for consideration of the matter comprising item no. 11, and i therefore ask the chair to give consideration for the next meeting to perhaps continuing that a week. I will be back october 30th. Thats fine. I will ask to pull the commissioners for their availability in the latter half of october. Yeah. And we will send out a notice of the rescheduling the regular meeting which is scheduled for the 24th to a date that is agreeable to all five commissioners. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im calling for Public Comment on matters appearing and not appearing on the agenda . Can i get this on the overhead . This is a listing of the 27 orders of determination finding various violations against city agencies and elected officials. Seven of these were heard referring to the Ethics Commission, five of them being without hearings and false reasons. The two that were given were on the public library. They resulted in a dubious fining given the Ethics Commission found itself in violation with the sunshine ordinance which is exactly the same matter 1188. In other words you were hearing a case on which you were found in violation. A case that was against the library for finding the same violation. The most interesting thing is the library continued to refuse to follow the orders of the task force until it had found three violations against it. And then everybody including this body finally shifted and a baed what they did in the first place. Will full disobedience. Its ironic that you are in a case similar. Finding your own body in violation. But hearing itself was a clear ethical screw up. Ethics case no. 03120402 was heard while i, the complainant was out of the state. Magically the referral made it over in less than a week and the history of the referral from the task force for this body has been typically on minimum of 4 months. Mine made it over in 7 days. You had the hearing the day before i returned to the state. Was that convenient . We have such a case on todays agenda and i predict a finding of no violation. I can already read you guys like a book. You have no intention at all of ever fulfilling your obligations under the sunshine ordinance. Even though that law specifically shows you as being the body to enforce it. You have done absolutely nothing in all these years to enforce it except pass one finding against one city official which the mayor ignored and we shamed into sending a letter to the mayor after you repeatedly asking the Library Commissioner to be removed. This is the most i am possess at impotent body. Public speaker good evening, my name is Michael Petrelis and im here to speak to you about a complaint i filed. Excuse me. Take your campaign outside this hearing. Please stock the clock. I want my 30 seconds given back to me as you interrupted me. I would like to see in writing the prohibition that prevents me from holding this sign. I want to see it in writing. Why are you telling me to put the this sign down because i feel you are infringing upon my 1st amendment rights. Can you produce in writing the prohibition that you say is the reason why i have to put my sign down . Yay or nay. Can you produce it in writing. I can make that ruling and ask you to put it down. You can put it down and step back. Why are you trying to infringe on my 1st amendment rights without producing in writing what you say are these rules. Through the chair to the City Attorney. Is it legally allowable for a candidate for office to use his Campaign Material in testifying before the commission with a Television Audience of which he certainly has knowledge. Off the top of my head, im not sure. It does seem like campaigning is not within the scope of the ethics jurisdiction. I suppose its within our scope also to offer and opinion under the 1st amendment on the merits or demerits of his candidacy. I would like to have my rights. Im not talking to you, sir. You have interrupted my Public Comment, sir. You cannot produce it in writing. I would like to see what you have about a Public Comment holding a sign regardless of what it is. If you would like an opinion i can provide it to you forthwith. I dont know the answer on the top of my head. Within a week or so before the next meeting. Go ahead with your comments. Thank you, please return my 30 seconds to me. You are not politics. Im here regarding a complaint i filed with San FranciscoEthics Commission on february 25th, against the mayor and willie brown. It pertains to my complaint pertained to an october 21st meeting of 2015. Im going to show a sign in sheet from the Mayors Office. As you see here there was a meeting on october 1st. It was at the Mayors Office. Among the attendees, the last person is willie brown. The column next to his name says his organization. He did not fill in the name of the organization or the entity that he was representing at this meeting with the mayor. Please come back to be on the camera. Other folks who were at this meeting include representatives from the east west bank. The now, the law says everyone attending meetings with the mayor has to sign, print their name and list the organization or entity they are representing. Willie brown did not do that. That is the basis of the complaint i filed 7 months ago. All i have received from the Ethics Commission since this complaint was filed was an acknowledgment that you have received the complaint and you are checking it out. Im here to ask you to direct the researchers at the Ethics Commission at 25 van ness avenue to move on this complaint. Im wondering how many other complaints have been filed along these same lines that are waiting for an investigation but are not happening. It is not serving the public. It is not fulfilling your mission as the Ethics Commission to have a complainant wait 7 months. Now, i dont expect by the time we come to next months meeting or if its happening, when we come back or in november, i dont expect well have a resolution to this. I have received no notification from the Ethics Commission that they are investigating. This kind of approach to processing a complaint is harming San Francisco transparency. Any other Public Comment. Mr. Chairman, if i can only comment that i have been aware of mr. Petrelis, the comments he is making is disturbing. Hes compromising this sign to be elected to the position while giving us this one complaint again. I think his sincerity and in terms of his presentation, you just wiped every bit of it out, sir. I would like to respond and disagree with you. I have requested in writing. Your time is up. You have jeopardized your ethical standing. Sir . I want to associate myself with vice chairman keanes remark in totality. And secondly at the time the executive director reports, i want to ask a question about the list of pending investigations and complaints. I cant recall if this is one of them or not. There were a number of them. Im fully aware of the fact that this is a new administration of the Ethics Commission in all respects. I have questions and im even troubled by the delays in some of the investigations that are setforth as part of the report to the commission. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Item 3. Discussion and possible action on draft minutes for the commissions july 25th, regular meeting. Commissioners, anyone have any corrections or changes to those minutes . Move approval. Second. All right. Public comment . Commissioners, San Francisco open government. These minutes are an example of the disservice this body and others do to individuals making Public Comment. Although speaking in most cases for 3 minutes, each persons Public Comment is boiled down to one or two lines. There is no reasonable attempt to provide a meaningful summary of what was said. What is certain to appear that any comment that praises this body or staff. There are a dozen of occasions where the staff is wonderful, the task force is wonderful. You dont add those things, just pick out anything critical. What is here is anything that credits the staff. Members of the public may have noticed that at a conclusion of each Public Comment, i pass a word summary to the staff. I take time to make thoughtful Public Comment exercising my constitutional right is worth a little time ensuring that it is accurately reported in the official record. Constitutional political free speech rises to the highest level of perfection. I think the four of you were attorneys. All of you realize that and you also release that the representation extended by the government is also extended protection. The reason being i want to make sure its actually recorded. The reason being that body such as this will sensor a bridge and otherwise remove public criticism. Lets not be stupid. Im not asking for the minutes to be a transcript, but a meaningful summary. I put in this for two 1 2 years and basically everyone refuse to put this in the minutes even though the sunshine ordinance clearly says if this summary is submitted it will be placed in the minutes. The task force, i had to go back six times until they finally issued a letter saying the City Attorneys information in a Good Government guide is not a legal opinion. In fact from what i know, the City Attorney has never offered any legal advice or legal opinion on the sunshine ordinance at all. All that happens is he tells people something and you tell everybody, thats attorneyclient privilege so you cant know what he told you. They show up at the hearing at some task force and the City Attorney advises this. And you say to somebody you have the nerve to ask the deputy City Attorney here whether the advice of the City Attorneys office will give to someone and no one will do that. Basically you will do exactly what mr. Pet trellis said that you will interfere with free speech at your will. Im not apropos that and im not confident to the question presented since i was not present and i was not a commissionerment but im curious as a point of information about two or three places where all i see is a reference to a first name. Maybe the executive director can explain. Is that an omission of the last name or people allowed to testify by giving only their first name . The testifier was not giving a name. It has been a practice that individuals can come before the commission and give their first name. They do not fill out a card. They have provided a first name and we dont always have that information. Let the record show that i am liable not to give weight to somebody who only provides a first name. And then there is a reference to a catherine or charlotte, i think you want to capital h on that. Be free from literary criticism. Thank you for that careful review. May i be excused from voting. I will call the question. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . The minutes are approved unanimously. Turning to item no. 4. Discussion and possible action on hearing on the merits for complaint no. 19131115, in the matter of Lynette Sweet and sweet for supervisor 2010. This matter was before the Commission Two meetings ago . In march. Yes, and at that time there was a proposed disposition which the commission did not approve and requested some further additional information. As i recall we were troubled by the fact that shes a candidate who received Public Financing, and there were some 20,000 approximately that could not be accounted for. I think the earlier report had said that most of it she said had gone to pay Staff Members, but there was nothing to support it. And we asked for the staff to look further to determine whether or not those representations were correct. Right. We dont have any additional documentation to evidence that. And she has not provided anything, and since the meeting in march, she has been mostly uncooperative and nonresponsive to staff. Did anybody on the staff seek to contact the individual who she says she made payment to . There are various Staff Members and it was difficult to obtain actual Contact Information for most of the people that were listed. Thank you, commissioners, catherine, on behalf of the staff Ethics Commission. This is a hearing on the ethics complaint 19131115. It does not appear that the respondent Lynette Sweet is here tonight. She was notified of the hearing two times and was provided all the documentation to the commission. This matter involves ten violation of the Campaign Finance ordinance. Seven violation of 1. 106 where respondents fail to File Campaign information and failed to maintain records of activity and section 2118 where respondent failed to pay Campaign Debt within 80 days of them an accruing. Staff believe that respondent have committed these violations based on the preponderance of the evidence presented. Respondent for supervisor for 2010 have provided no response to staff hearing briefs and have not contest ed in the charges since the accusation of february 18th. Lynette ran for supervisors and requested public funding. Over all her Committee Received 57409. The act of recipient of public funding. The staff were required to perform an audit. During the audit, the respondent failed to provide documentation for 51,000 and 800 in contributions. After the report in july 14th, which the respondent did not provide a response. The respondent provided additional documentation for 4428 in expenditures and 4150 in contributions. Approximately 24803 remain outstanding without any supporting documentation. In addition respondent has failed to file any Campaign Communication through 2010. Whatever Committee Activity has occurred if any has been out of the public eye. Respondent has also two unpaid debt of 2650. These debt remain over 180 days and now unlawful contributions. Therefore staff request the Commission Order for feiture in the amount of. Additionally a penalty of 5,000 per violation. The charter permits a maximum penalty of three times the amount of improperly reported which is in this case 74409. 18. However, because the respondent a cooperated some with staff, staff request that the staff assess maximum fine of 50,000. You are holding that sign specifically for tv. That is not allowed. Put it down or leave. Take your choice. You want to get the bailiff here . There is a button. Is there a phone number on the screen for the sheriffs office. There is a phone right there. You are perfectly welcome to stay here but you cannot campaign here. So respondents violation were severe and negligent. They violated the public trust by failing to file required campaign statements. The public was and still unable to monitor what activities have occurred after december 2010. Also put that down. Im sorry. Thats okay. I cant see whats going on. So i dont know. Well, is a bailiff in route . Why dont you get him because this gentleman is playing the role of a clown effectively and distracting everybody. Would you like me to continue . Yes, please. The respondent previously ran for office in california and submitted all the Campaign Requirements in the political format which have been incorporated by the local law, the campaign reform. In complying to funds responding to scrutiny and the public about how she financed her campaign. Respondent knew her records would be audited and yet failed to maintain the commissions activity. Respondent has been largely uncooperativ