Bring much much more quickly than i have been able to be in the past thank you mr. Chairman and . You mentioned undertaking the Educational Campaign of the public resume ugly, could you talk about that a little bit . What would be the over arching reason and how would you go about it . I mean what you are talking about for the average individual, the average citizen is very complicated and one of the problems that i at least have perceived is that people still dont really understand what the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission is to put it mildly. Then they expect when they bring something to you they expected to be resolved very quickly without understanding all the complexities youve just outlined. There are so many areas that would seem to fall under the Ethics Commission but really where we have no jurisdiction or power to deal with. So i would hope that would be part of the Educational Campaign, although im sure its more complicated than what you might think in trying to educate the public on that. Yes. Absolutely. Educating the public about our jurisdiction and how the enforcement process works and how to file and where to file a quality complaint are at the top of my list for subject matter in an education campaign. We are starting with a very significant and revision of our website, which we can put everything on the website but we are doing a complete overhaul in order to enter direct individual to traffic our website to the areas of inquiry where they came why they came to the website. In my view, in my vision of this Educational Campaign the coal would be to increase the public understanding of what we are authorized to do and also what we can do to help them and sort of instruct him to file quality complaint with us to that we can investigate and handle. How that looks and how that shakes out is still in the very beginning stages. It just something weve been discussing internally right now but its definitely something i think thats on my radar could i say it everybody has a little bit of a heart attack because we are not sure we are ready for an increase or significant increase in the filing of complaints rainout that is the right. Absolutely spirited if tomorrow we got 100 complaints theyll be difficult for us to deal with but in the future getting 100 complaints is not something i want to shy away from. Something we want to encourage particularly in the area of whistleblower complaints which have come to us theres a lot of discussion about who really olds jurisdiction whether or not it should come to us or whether its hr, i think a lot of those complaints are much more Human Resource and they have more jurisdiction than we do and i think theres a lot of misunderstanding about that and then i think also the redundancy or so it seems to me, of the Sunshine Ordinance Task force and the complaints that they then filtered to us which are often dismissed for any variety of reasons but it does seem as if theres redundancy there in i dont knowi know weve worked with the Sunshine Ordinance Task force in the past to resolve issues and misunderstandings between the commission and the task force but it seems to me theres still a lot of work that needs to be done in that area. So i dont know if you see it that way but perhaps i absolutely do. I think at the november Commission Meeting were going to try to have several subject ordinance matters on the agenda no, its december. November good one of the upcoming Commission Meetings i think capt. Not available in november so it might be december. Where we have a number sunshine ordinance matters on the agenda for you to consider. With a memo for a proposal for how to deal with those matters and to do with the conflict between us and the Sunshine Ordinance Task force. Essentially a be honest with you my leaning is to be more deferential to their findings and to not undertake our own independent investigation of every matter that comes in the door the to view ourselves as an Enforcement Authority when they do her for a matter to us. Any othercommissioner keane i just like your thoughts on one aspect of our process that you took us through quite nicely in terms of where complaint through to the determination of the complaint. That is, the probable cause hearings. In regard to the probable cause hearings that we have we have one of the things that this commission has always put forth that we want as much transparency as possible get the public should know exactly what we are doing. So they can have respect for it and see we are doing it legitimately. The probable cause hearings that we have wheedled him in closed session. I come from a background of having been a criminal defense attorney and a public defender for 30 years or so, in which you give the ultimate due process to the person who is charged because youre taking away the persons life and freedom. The probable cause hearing in the criminal Justice System which is a luminary hearing is open. The public sees it. The public sees whats going on and can make decisions in regard to a very important part of the process of prosecution. Why is it that our proceedings, we are due process in terms of whats at stakeno one way for freedom is at stakethe worst at stake is there some sort of ethical type of sanction may be a fine or wheneverwhy is it in your view, do we have to give that level of due process to someone who a complaint has been addressed in an epic situation and have a close probable cause hearing . Why cannot we do it in the open like we do parliamentary hearings in criminal cases . I agree with you. I think its odd they would be closed but i think thats the way our charter has laid out the process. So we are kind of stuck with that aspect of the issue. We could improve the process though for the commission and for the public is by not having the full panel said the probable cause. But by assigning either single commissioner broadside Administrative Law judge to handle the probable cause hearing confidentially and quickly so that the full panel the commission does not use it twice because essentially youre hearing the same evidence twice at both probable cause and the hearing on the merits. That level of due process is certainly not required by the charter but currently being given. So in terms of remedying what we both think should be remedied, the answer is a charter change . Yes. That would be the answer thank you anyone else . Mr. Chairman, let the record show i want to associate myself with commissioner keanes remarks. I had occasion about your not the one maybe two years ago, were somebody calls me to tell me a long story problem with the Ethics Commission and referred to this confidential meeting with a commission and i was skeptical and i said, no, that cant be the law. But it is the law. So i would just like to encourage staff when you come back with recommendations either at the november or december meeting to think of the best in your best judgment will be the most effective ways to make the process more efficient and more effective both for the staff and also for the complainants Going Forward. That means to commissioner keanes point going back and revising the charter then we like to consider that as well. Absolutely. November, december for the current discussion is a little soon because we want to engage the public. The process i formulated with wleeann and im not doing this on my ownis to first start with a series of inches in person meetings with the Public Entity was publicly and openly engage the public in their ideas and their thoughts on how to change the enforcement process so it works better for everybody. Then put pen to paper based on those after pointing those recommendations and ideas to come up with a suggested changes to the regulation. If ordinance or charter changes are necessary than to put those in a separate box that we need to consider before the commission. The regulations what the commission can deal with now. Once we have the suggested recommendations will we will bring those to the commission to with you and open up eight period Public Comment for 30 days we can get written about, and on the actual draft language of the regulation. At the conclusion of the Public Comment period we take another 30 days to incorporate and respond to those comments and then bring the full package of suggested recommendations back to the commission. We just want the process to be as open and public and of all the public as much as possible. One more comments. You noted earlier in the comments and also in your memo, that it is a sunshine ordinance or whistleblower complaint that comes in mistake priority over all other clients because it needs to be presented at the next Commission Meeting. I take that to mean if it came in the week before the Commission Meeting you would have to scramble to conduct all the background were to present it to us at the next meeting. Is that correct . The regulations give us a little breathing room in circumstances and is as where appropriate or possible because there are notice deadline so we have to give the other parties did it for a week before this Commission Meeting will be the next appropriate Commission Meeting. So in this case november. I guess my concern would be and without diminishing the importance of those complaints that come in under the sunshine ordinance what is of concern everything also get pushed to the back burner and i think it would contribute also to the backlog. I would love your best thinking in terms of how best to balance those competing priorities. Absolutely. Isnt it correct ms. Pala, in los angeles the process was you as executive director did the probable cause determination and was only after you made a termination that was probable cause that then went to the mission for hearing on the merits yet get under the Los Angeles Charter there was a probable cause process was again confidential as it is here and wait unless waived by the respondent. So the probable cause determination hearings were held at the staff level. They were confidential and then based on that process was a 30 day time period for issuing a probable cause determination which was written it came out under my analysis in my signature. The rover 400 cases during my tenure as executive director there. Then if probable cause was determined, found, then an accusation was issued publicly according to the rule and then went to the Ethics Commission for public hearing. The hearing on the merits at that point so, as you understand the charter is there any reason why we cant go that way without a charter change . I have to take a closer look at our charter. I think the two issues raised in your discussion is a degree of confidentiality the commission desires for that process and separately the notion of two bites at the same panel in essence. Is there way to separate out the due process so that there is one step for probable cause process and then a separate process and independent process for hearing on the merits it would seem that is more consistent with due process than to have the body who is going to be the making a determination as to whether theres a violation be the one that also looks at the evidence and without any Public Knowledge and makes a determination. I think thats a proposal that would be very helpful to take a close look at. I think that is Something Worthy of our focus on discussion. All right. Any of the comments by the commission . Any Public Comment . I just have one question. This law, all those kinds of items can only be dismissed by the commission. Is that accurate . No. The executive director can dismiss those items as well as a preliminary review . Under the example in los angeles i was describing the executive director had authority to determine whether or not probable cause how about now . No. You have 84 pulmonary review. Youve got a log thats confidential. Items on that log , who can dismiss those . Only the commission yes, that only the commission. Thats my question. Thank you. Barry bush speaking as an individual. The civil grand jury report on ethics we put out in june of 2014 look at number of these issues. As you have just discussed we quickly learn when we focus only on the Ethics Commission we do not have a very complete picture. We had to look down on the City Attorney and District Attorney and all the other arms of government involved in ethics policy and enforcement. One of the things that i did separately when i was doing city report was put in a request to the dist. Atty. In the City Attorney and ethics for how many cases have been referred from ethics over to the City Attorney into the district budget. Just the number. You could not get actual ticket when i discovered the District Attorney had no record of any referral. They simply were not keeping track of them. I assume they had referrals because the were some indication ethics at some things over but they just disappeared. So earlier i heard the commissioners discussing the fact that these referrals went to other agencies but then did not come back to the Ethics Commission and ugly was commissioner keane who is the point couldnt there be a deadline at which point the commission can either take it back or else do a parallel investigation. I think thats something thats only worth consideration especially since you have a more robust approach with staff know. Thank you. Thank you. I got 90 days in my commissioners, San Francisco it. Ive been coming to these hearings for about eight years. Im a member of mensa and i read all the documents attached to the agenda every page every word. Sometimes several times because its hard to understand. I would like to complement ms. Bloomis a balloon . This and most coherent cogent understandable comprehensive document ive ever read presented to this Ethics Commission. I would also like to complement of her on the fact that the sunshine ordinance got a fullpage which is something that typically never happens. It would get to or three lines while Everything Else got very thorough treatment. I particularly was amazed and heartened by the fact that her Public Comment was the fact that she said we are to give more deference to the findings of the sunshine ordinance passport. The reason i say that as ive said before about 27 orders of determination but thats over nine years is about three years and every one of those years there were 3040 orders issued by the task force and not one of them in all these years has ever been enforced. Only one was even attempted to be enforced. So its all well and good to keep looking at the procedures and policies etc. But at the end if push comes to shove and you think findings you can enforce them its really kind of a useless effort. The only one that everyone was the president of the Lottery Commission they watched a video of herthe actual event. They voted unanimously that she violated the rights of a member of the public to make Public Comment. They recommended the mayor unanimously that she be removed for conduct unbecoming and the mayor ignored it. A year later it was in the newspaper and we got them to send another letter and they ignored that. So basically unless you can find some mechanism to enforce your orders its really kind of odd to have the hearings in the first place. Ive said it before and ill say that in sarcastic ways because i didnt know how to get across to people but if youre going to have hearings make determinations but you can enforce them that just hurts your own credibility. Thats something i try to say politely for several years just got so frustrated and angry by the fact that everybody seem to think i was just coming out of left field with some bizarre notion. The task force works very hard. They sure a lot of hearings in the issue orders of determination probably about 1 10 case. But when they do they honestly do a very good job at doing the facts and the chairman is usually right good referral letters and i give them credit for that. Thank you. Dr. Jared kurt whistleblower. Its not enough to talk about resources and regulations and improving investigations particularly of whistleblower claims. You also have to address a political milieu, a mindset that affects the staff and the commission. Whistleblowers represent a threat because they break ranks with the city family. You are part of the city family. You know many of these officials. You empathize with him. You are affiliated with them. So it is scary, or introduces some fears, when you have to deal with an accusation of wrongdoing by a fellow city official. Potentially, for the staff they have to worry about what will happen to them if they find in favor of a whistleblower. This is a problem in all whistleblower programs, not just here. So i hope the staff will address implicit bias against whistleblowers and feared for their own careers if they pursue a case. These are real things and you really should address them. Thank you very much thank you. I want to say that in my 19 years, almost 20,following ethics meetings this is been the most robust discussion we had on the enforcement program. I see light bulbs going upgoing off all over the room on how we can get ourselves in a much better position to represent the public interest. Because i think we have not been , and there is a growing period as bodies like this form it takes 10 years to get underway but were now over 20 and were so finding our way. But i want to just say to the new commissioner particularly, that the