tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 25, 2017 1:00pm-2:01pm PST
last month and unfortunately following that commission meeting we realised that we did not have complete information and we made an error. this is back on your agenda for a possible bylaws change again, to clarify the following. mission meetings as proposed in this bylaw change would supersede last month's change and based on room availability in city hall, as well as on the ability to cable cast live, fully the commission's meetings, we needed to make a room change and time change. the room and the time that we -- the commission approved last month would have provided for televised broadcast, but not for the duration of the meeting. that is something that we overlooked. apologies. when we triple checked and quadruple checked the calendar. the bylaws rules proposed in this memo would provide for a regular meeting date on the third friday of each month
starting at 1:00 p.m. in room 416 unless otherwise noticed. based on that calendar, all heatings follow that schedule with the exception of the may meeting which would be on a monday, may 7 at 1:00 in city hall room 408. we apologize for having to reconsider this issue. there are extremely tight constraints on city hall meeting rooms and the availability to telecast live which is what our bylaw also require. with that, we presented this. we noticed it 10 days if advance of the meeting so that the public also has a chance to weigh in and we provide this to you for your consideration today. >> thank you. commissioner kopp? >> we could make that 2:00. i would have no objection because i have a conflict fridays between 12:00 and 1:30 or so. >> ms. pelham? >> i think that is up to the commission's discretion. >> but that would work out in terms of the schedule of the tv
and all that stuff? >> yes. the rooms on fridays are open after 12:00. >> i'll make such a motion. >> commissioner kopp has moved to amend it so that meetings begin at 2:00 rather than 1:00. commissioner lee? >> i just have a question. obviously there would be -- there should be no more meetings on friday night. is there any other meeting scheduled on the friday afternoon after hours? >> no, not continue -- not that i'm aware of. we checked that. in unthat are currently scheduled. >> do we have a second? >> i'll second it. >> potion -- motion has been made and seconded. further comment by the axisingers? -- commissioners? >> my only comment would be, and it is directed to the staff and the comment that was made about sort of trying to bring
in those people who are otherwise employed at -- in an afternoon and, as i understand it, there is a telephone type of connection that can be worked out, is that right? >> well, i think that is? ing we're still trying to explore. i'm not familiar with how the room is set up to accommodate multiple phone lines or call-in and so i -- i'm hesitant to convey a confirmation that that's doable at this point. >> i would urge you to check and, if at all possible, make it so that there is a number they could call in to and mute their cell phones or whatever it is until they want to address the commission. ok? >> further comment by commissioners? we'll take public comment.
>> i'm bob planthold. i'm glad you considered the change initially. i'm glad you are looking again. it is a going to be widely, consistently available on tv. i support this. and i want to pointed out that sfrat attending in person, people can monitor these meetings, ao*eltser through the cable tv station or because these are cablecast simultaneously. so, people at work, on a, muni bus, up in their attic, wherever they are, they can keep track of this. in terms of the call-in phone number, before i wrote my comments to you, i check with the acting director on disability about the long-term practice about having a call-in phone line and she verified that it is free. it is not prescribed to any part of a domestic's budget. so, it is a zero cost item and
the staff there can help ethics staff with getting whatever equipment. there is typically one extra phone. i think you'll find a way to plug in an extra phone here in this room or in 408 as need be. because the i.t. folks downstairs are pretty adept at managing public communications of public meetings. so, i think there need not be a problem with not having at night anymore. people can, as they sometimes do at work, do their work we're buds and the ear buds may connect to some other audio information other tan their work and so suddenly when they get to item x that they're interested in, they could pause their work, dial in and speak their peace. free to them, free to you folks and thereby increase participation more widely by multiple media. thank you. >> thank you. >> this is so wonderful to see
that city hall has a government agency like this to keep track of all the construction and of all the happenings at these commissioners meetings. i just want to bring to your attention in which i have a list of complaints that i have on a number of departments and i will submit it to you before i leave. but i want to bring to your attention one agency which is i fought hard to bring them from where they used to have their commissioners meeting, which is the san francisco housing authority commissioners. right after the mayor had announced what they call a reenvisioning. they started the p.p.p. and they were instructed to move to city hall and to have their meetings video taped. but they had not done that until -- they haven't even done it yet and they done been through what they call the rad.
and most of the housing authority tenants don't have a clue right now that there is no more housing authority left to manage over their agencieses. they have the developers and developers hired the nonprofits. in my opinion to kick the people out. now i'm going to ask, along with the other agencies that you look at san francisco housing authority and look at the oewd, look at ocii, look at the department of real estate and i'm going to name a few. and this is a letter that i gave to the mayor and i hope that this didn't cause him to have a heart attack because it was the first letter that i ever signed in 20 years. but i had told the city and county and the mayor particularly that we wanted to know what's going on with the addition, yoshis, where the city and county spent over $18, $19 million and never got a dime of it back. but they lit 1300. a place there that used to have a commissioner that used to work with the small business
commissioner, manetta white on 1300. on top of that, opened up a business right across the street from where she supposed to be closed at, they call black bart. and then adjure -- she got another store out there at the airport. 1300. so, out in the heck -- and i don't care if she is black. how in the heck in the community where the city let someone that's -- that was a community person , then turn to a small business and had to go to that agency and have her kicked off but yet she can have a business open and oewd and ocii don't monitor them? there's a lot of things that i'm going to bring to this agency. i'm 63, but i'm willing and able to be out there and to monitor and bring you back all the wrongdoing in this city by the bay. we'll be called city hall, but i call it conveniently silly hall. my name is ace and y'all i'm on the case.
[laughter] >> thank you. >> i love that. >> any further public comments on this agenda item? >> mr. chairman? >> commissioner kopp? >> in section four where there is a reference to the place of the meetings, i suggest that it be the city and county of san francisco. a matter of legal sufficiency. thank you. >> that is appropriate and that change will be made. any further discussion? we'll move to item number four then -- oh, i'm sorry. oh. i'm sorry. >> we have a motion pending to approve minutes and it has been seconded by commissioner renne. all those in favour? >> aye. >> ark ye.
>> the bylaws. approving the change in the bylaws. do we have a motion? >> we have a motion. i'll make the motion that we approve the bylaw change as recommended by the staff. >> just to clarify, commissioner. i'm sorry. we had a motion by commissioner kopp and seconded by commissioner renne. >> that was on the minutes. >> it was adopted and commissioner renne's motion is on the proposal as amended. >> oh, ok. yeah. and so that is commissioners renne's motion s. there a second? >> second. >> all right. any discussion on the motion? all those in favour of the motion, say aye? those opposed? motion carries unanimously. ok.
the item five discussion and possible action on revised ethics commission enforcement regulations. there's an attachment of december 13 and staff memorandum and attachments. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm going to stand. i'm going to avail myself of the elmo projector. as you know, we've been working to revise -- substantially rerise the enforcement regulations that govern the processes and procedures that staff use in order to evaluate and investigate and bring to conclusion complaints alleging violations of law in the commission's jurisdiction. on page two of the staff memoranda, you'll see a list of seven big changes, big picture changes that the regulations undertake. and through this process, those big picture changes haven't really changed at all. so, within the structure of the
enforcement regulations, delegating probable cause authority to the executive director, delegating responsibility for conducting investigations to the deputy director, turning the finding of probable cause into the charginging document for the purposes of hearing on the merits before this commission. considering settlement proposals in public, combining the sunshine ordinance regulations with the ethics commissions enforcement regulations and codifying the waiver policy by regulation instead of by policy. that is all remains the same in this draft that you are seeing today. there is a -- substantial changes that were made -- i wouldn't say substantial, but some bigger changes made to the sunshine ordinance section that is different from the last time you saw this regulation -- this package of regulations and i want to talk about those a little bit specifically so that you are aware and that's highlighted for you. i also wanted to advise you that we received a couple of
last-minute submissions for written public comment today. what i would like to do and is that you not vote on these regulations as a final package today to give staff additional time to evaluate those two written submissions and then we'll bring you back final language and final package in january. so i'll leave that to you to decide. >> well, for chairman, i must state that i need time to evaluate mr. shenz's comments. >> yes. >> as well as these other comments from the task force and i don't know the timing internally from an administrative standpoint, but i would prefer if i had those two documentses five days ago and not today.
>> yes. >> so that is what i convey to mr. schenn and i convey to whoever represents the task force. >> the documents that i placed on your desk are the two that i placed to deal with and that is the reason for the delay and sending in their comments. so we don't hold that against them and happy to evaluate those comments and do a good job of reviewing and implementing them for january. but i do -- because mr. young is the administrator for the sunshine administrator task force came today to answer any changes that you have to that section of the regulation, i'd like to walk you through those. on page three of the agenda
packet, i discussed those changes and staff's reaction to them and i just also wanted to bring your attention to the exact provisions of the sunshine ordinance that we're talking about. i'll try to see if i can get this to show up. yeah, when i'm done, right? oh. ok. yeah, yeah, yeah. ok. sorry. so it showed up. ok. good. so, the first is in my evaluation of the sunshine ordinance, i discovered something that apparently hadn't been discovered before and that is under section -- at least between the two agencies, the ethics commission and sunshine ordinance task force itself. under 67.30, the sunshine ordinance task force has the authority to send any referral of an order that they make to our commission for enforcement. that's because our commission is an identified enforcement agency in a different section of the sunshine ordinance. so where as in the past, all
the sunshine ordinance -- >> i'm sorry. sorry to interrupt you. but just a comment i want to make and athink my colleagues will agree that in regard to our screens up here, for the last few meetings, every time something has been put up and we're supposed to be able to see it better on our screens, the screens go crazy. >> oh, no. >> and so whoever is in charge of the technical aspect of our screens, they should take care of that. because we haven't -- we haven't had the benefit of our screens for the last few meetings. we just get this like 1950s tv after midnight-type stuff on it. >> oh, wow with. ok. yes, thank you. i'll read it out loud then. so, section 67.30 of the add pin tiff code sets forth the sunshine ordinance task force and all of its authority. everything that it is empowered to do. and sort of buried in that
section, it states the task force shall make referrals to a municipal office with enforcement power under this ordinance or california record publics act and the brown act. whenever it concludes that any person has violated any provisions of this or did fans or the acts. so, we are a municipal office with enforcement power under section 67.35, which says any person may institute proceedings for enforcement in end penalties before the court of comp tend jurisdiction or ethics commission. because we have enforcement power, we don't have to wait for the sunshine ordinance task force to decide that someone has committed official misconduct. they can send matters to us for enforcement whenever they conclude that someone has violated the law. that opens the door to a few more options for us when we're considering -- for the commission. when it's considering orders of determination send over by the sunshine ordinance task force and that serves as the crux of
the proposals for referle ras. we're proposing that the commission would defer to orders of determination from the sunshine ordinance task force in terms of their findings of fact. that means that if the sunshine ordinance task force reaches a conclusion about a fact-finding or promulgates some findings of fact so that we would defer to those findings. if a respondent appears before the axising or presents a new fact or something substantially different, we might decide we want to consider that new fact in this context or we could remand it back to the sunshine ordinance task force for them to consider at their level. that way went we're considering what the sunshine task force has investigated and determined, we have a complete picture. and then the other provision that i recommend we change in addition to that option to remand is that we would review all conclusions of law di novo.
we are the only commission allowed to promulgate rauls or interim the sunshine ordinance. we would still have the power to disagree with the sunshine ordinance task force if, for example, they found -- we have cases in the pasts that they found a violation based on the understanding of the law we did not share with them. that power would not go away. this would take effect in the place of -- today we have the respondent come forward and complainant come forward and present their case to you all in the context of a show clause hearing. now we consider the findings of fact to be the complete picture unless presented with something substantially new or different. ahem. excuse me. the other big change that you'll see is i recommend givinging the complainants and respondents in those show
clause hearings 10 minutes instead of five minutes. i think we've seen in the past that, for the most part, people who feel very passionate about their orders of determination and feel like five minutes is not enough time for them. the sunshine ordinance task force recommended that we give them an opportunity for rebuttal. but my view is giving each side 10 minutes will be enough to get their comment out and rebuttal would be unnecessary. so with that, i would entertain any questions from you and then there are many members of the public here to address the issue. >> commissioner renne? >> i do have a question about the findings of fact. is that a change from how the eics commission has approached sunshine ordinance task force matters? >> i think technically yes. but practically speaking, not really. in my experience, i have not seen this body question the fact finding of the task force. but what i have seen is that sometimes the respondent would
appear before the commission but not did appear before the sunshine ordinance task force at all and bring you new facts and you base your decision on the new facts and what this would do would sort of preserve the task force's role in that fact-finding process, by giving you the option to remand it to them if you would like to. you would still be able to retain jurisdiction and not remand it if you didn't want to. >> as i the criticism that has been leveled at this commission, is that we never uphold the sunshine task force. and is that because we disagree with them on the law or that we disagree with them on their finding of fact? >> from what i have seen, it's largely been either because you disagree with them on the law or because you disagree with their finding that the violation amounts to official misconduct. so, up until now, the task force has only referred cases to this body where they found
-- they make a finding of willful violation which, opportunitier sunshine ordinance, shall be deemed official misconduct. if this commission were to agree with that finding, which is really the only thing that they're presented with on the referral, you would be required -- that would trigger a requirement under a different part of the charter where you ask the mayor to start official misconduct proceedings. from my view, this commission has been unwilling to do that for the most part. what this new set of, regulations does is give you enforcement finding short of official misconduct and recognizes that the sunshine ordinance has the ability to refer cases to you short of a findinging of official misconduct. so, you'll start to get referrals from the sunshine ordinance task force with regular findings and regular requests for enforcement for penalties. and for injunction instead of for a finding of official misconduct. >> and in those case, we're
bound by factual finding is, assume nothing new evidence is. >> defer. yes. you would defer, where appropriate. there is a little wiggle room there. but for the most part you defer to their findings of fact. for what with it's wo*frt, i have not seen them get the facts wrong. they do a very good job of having the complainant and respondent and all the parties there. they do a good job of getting the parties to talk to each other and to get firefightersing and documents from the agencies. they are not always correct on the conclusions of law. but this body has a responsibility under the sunshine ordinance when they're going to enforce the law to be correct on the conclusions of law. which is why we would need to review di novo. >> and those matters that we would take up then that would not be matters that result in official misconduct would be matters, what, where there was negligence or that it was not willingful? >> right. nonwillful. just regular violations where somebody -- we actually saw a
few original complaints like this, where someone was alleging that the documents were redacted improperly so exemptions were claim beed by the agency that were improperly claimed and the sunshine ordinance task force would have to go through and decide whether or not they were properly claimed. if the agency still refuses to produce documents without those exemptions, they could refer it to us to impose a penalty of up to $5,000 per violation. >> i have a question. >> yes, commissioner? >> to commissioner renne. it sounds to me as if the ethics commission would be similar to a court of appeal. if it must accept findings of fact. have you had experience in this kind of a proceeding?
as an ethics commissioner. >> well, i can't call specifically to mind but i know the criticism that we've goten from the public is that we don't accept the findings of the sunshine ordinance task force. no that may be because we disagree on the implementation of the law or the application of the law. but i do think it is a -- if it's spelled out that, if effect, it is like a court of appeals where we're -- we have to take the record that they give us and the only question we have is did they apply the law correctly -- >> yeah. >> i think that is -- certainly i think, in my mind, that is a change in at least the public's
perception of how we've dealt with sunshine ordinance task force. >> yes. i would, too. >> i have a question then through the chair for mr. schenn. maybe a short but incisive memorandum of law. on whether that is the current state of the law. >> i'm not sure if i -- >> you don't have to do it now. but i'd like to know if a paint or two of a written opinion as to whether the law now require this is commission to accept analogous to the court of appeals in the state of california, the findings of fact of the sunshine ordinance task force.
and in reviewing the action of the task force, base its review upon the law. that was a question. >> sure. i think i could briefly respond. in terms of sunshine ordinance itself, this is an issue that we have struggled with in adopting these regulations or form lating them in the first instance. >> i'd like to know the state of the law now. in your opinion. >> right. >> before i get to the regulations next month. >> right. and the sunshine ordinance is not specific on that exact question. which why there is a need in the regulation to spell out exactly what is the per view of the ethics commission's review of task force's decisions. because the sunshine ordinance is nonspecific on those questions. that is why we've had to delve into these issues a little more precisely here. >> about the legislative history of that issue. >> the last time we looked at it, it was inconclusive and we looked into all these issues.
>> well that makes it a horse of a different colour for me. >> so, just following up on commissioner kopp's and your comment's mr. schenn. since it is not specific it seems like it would be up to us as to whether or not we would adopt their findings. is that true? >> that is correct. >> ok. >> that's right. yeah. opportunitieder existing regulations that are in effect right now and have been since 2013, i'm not -- i can't tell you -- the way that it's set out there, it doesn't specifically say that we have to defer to findings of fact for the task force but rather it says in the show clause hearing, the respondent has burden of proving the task force was wrong basically. so we're just sort of clarifying what that means for the public and what that means for the commission. so, that's why i said technically speaking this is a change. but practically speaking, the law -- the records were written
in a different way. but intended for the same outcome. and i can -- i think that the reason why there iss no legislative history on the sunshine ordinance, maybe mr. schenn could confirm this. but it is because it was enacted by referendum so there is no record of debate or legislative intend. is that right? >> yeah. >> mr. chairman -- >> commissioner kopp? [laughter] laugh >> this is just a comment on one of the proposed substantive provisions and that is your last asterisk. and i raise it rhetorically. isn't it custom and practice in a disputed hearing process to allow for rebuttal? you don't have to answer that now. but think about it.
and i noticed just quickly that the task force recommends allowing three-minute rebuttals to all parties. and i have made a note that it seems if those circumstances, meaning a rebuttal is permissible that the 10 minutes should be cut and just to provoke, i would favour cutting it to five minutes and allowing each side three minutes of rebutttal. >> ok. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> commissioner renne? >> commissioner kopp, may i suggest maybe a compromise would be a total of 10 minutes and the party can reserve of that 10 minutes what part of it or he she wants to use as rebutttal like they do in the
supreme court, for example. >> i agree. >> that is a good idea. ok. >> very good. >> all right. let the public weigh in. thank you very much. >> should we have the sunshine ordinance comments? >> hi, my name is victor young, i'm the administrator for the sunshine ordinance task force. it was the intent of chair wolfe to attend today's meeting but he was unable to make it to today's meeting due to work circumstances. and just to provide a brief summary, most the subject matter has been covered, but the main concern of the task forces is they believe that the ethics commission should be only determining what enforcement action should be taken and not readjudicating the complaints.
that is the very simple form of it. i provided a list of their six points of recommendations. i provided those at today's meeting. i apologize fot providing those earlier. but i wasn't aware i would be here until the last moment. >> thank you, mr. young. any last questions of mr. young? commissioner renne ?, >> it your suggestion that the only role of the commission is to dole out the penalties even though it thinks that the task force has gotten the law wrong? is that your position? >> i believe the task force position is that the ethics commission would be enforcing the decisions of the sunshine ordinance task force. >> even if we felt that you had the law wrong? >> i would not be ability to
speak to that part of i. i would bring that question back to the task force. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, my comment on that is that the task force should inform us clearly whether that's its position. and that should be in writing. >> i will bring that back to the -- we will prepare a formal memo when possible. >> ok. thank you, mr. young. public comment on this matter? >> commissioners, this will be my last time coming before you too. i have some other things to do, but i'm going to wind it all together here. i would like to submit this copy and then at the next meeting you can pass it out to
the commissioners where it clearly says where yours truly, ace washington, i wrote a letter to ed lee on may 4. he got it. let's see. wednesday he called for an emergency department head, supposedly to tell them to cut the budget. by e -- but i think it might have been because of that letter there and because of one building, the western edition. as far as the sunshine act, i remember back in the days, before this gentleman was there, maybe before you were commission, we in the west edition brought issues about the african american cultural centres was acting up and doing some illegal things. we brought all the evidence to this commission. do you know that they still said it was a conflict of interest. they couldn't do on it because those two agencies were so protected by this corrupt city and county, the cultural centre
at the time and i hate to say it because i ain't saying anything bad about our current mayor, but the director at the time was london breed. the lady is a commissioner with the human rights commission. when i bring back my complaint, it will go back a few years right now to where the western edition has been penalized, not by individuals, but one individual and i'm willing to have a debate with him because i got no allegiance to this man. his name is willie brown jr.. now willie brown jr.. i've been waiting for the time for him to raise his ugly head. figuratively speaking, not ugly. he had to get up there and he say it and i'm asking for an investigation. he got up there and said it. i'm the one with responsible
for forcing ed lee to be a mayor! he didn't want to be the mayor. no, he did not want to be a mayor because he was a civil rights helping everybody. me myself, too. when he turned politic, politricks started in 2011. what i'm bringing to your attention, and i'll tell them willie brown, he got up there and said it was his idea. he orchestrated the conspiracy. y'all must hear it a lot in my songs. it was a conspiracy and i'm going to tell the next lieutenant governor who might be our governor, for him to stop saying that. don't say you was proud of that because that was willie brown did that and that governor don't need all that residue that is going to come out. i'm going to tell the truth, nothing but the truth so help ace god. i been knowing ed lee for 20, 30 years. i shook he hand when he said he was getting ready to quit and go to korea and to close it,
willie brown said publicly he orchestrated that takeover. i was there -- [inaudible]. >> thank you. >> [inaudible]. >> it shows you that anybody can be taught to be a politician. right? >> [inaudible]. >> i'm larry bush. i've commented on a few of the measures in the proposal. one is on section five, which was the investigations and sets a timeline of the director of enforcement will notify the district attorney and the city attorney of a pending case and within 14 days after they respond with what they're going to do, the commission will move forward. as i recall, you all adopted a policy a few months ago that said that you would not wait forever for the city attorney or district attorney to come back with a decision of whether
they were going to act. >> excuse me, mr. chairman. did you direct us to section five? >> of the hand outhere. >> yeah. >> agenda item five -- >> oh, you mean page five. not section five of the draft. ok. thank you. >> oh, i'm not here for that reason. [laughter] i'm on page eight, section five. sets the timeline for notifying -- >> quit imitating me by getting it all wrong. [laughter] >> you do it better than i do. >> oh! [laughter] so, as i recall you did a timeline in which you recall if it sat over a certain period of time that the district attorney's office or city attorney's office that you would initiate your own
investigation. and that's not here in this proposal. so i would recommend that that be included in your regulations. since it was an adopted policy of the commission. secondly, under penalties, which is on page 19 -- now that i know how to read the pages -- the penalty factors, i think that one factor needs to be considered as the timeliness of the offence. so, if it is an offence that is taking place and there iss a pending decision that would be affected by a wrongful act, then i don't think you should have a timeline that would let these procedures go for months into the future. i know that is an issue that the commission has had in the past of how long it takes things to get resolved. but particularly looking at a sunshine ordinance violation, the fact that it would take five or six months to wind its
way through to this stage, means that the information is really useless at that point. and in that vain, i would point out that it ought to be clear that the sunshine ordinance applieses to the california supreme court's decision of march 2, 2017 of the city of san jose versus the superior court of santa ana clara which held that private communication device like an iphone can be searched and the information made available on it as a request as a public document. part of the problem with the supreme court's opinion is it did not set out the penalty. and so in your enforcement thing, it needs notes that those penalties would apply to a failure to respond to a request for text messages or e-mails or what have you.
and, again, that ufnz scores the timeliness of response. if someone takes and says i'm invoking my 10-day delay to review this, and e-mails are going back and forth about who's going to be the actinging mayor and it takes place in a week, what is the point of having 10 days? you would never know it is going on,less unless you're writing history instead of the city's policies. thank you. >> thank you. >> further public comment? >> commissioners, i'm -- i just wanted to thank the deputy director and ethics director for going through so robustly on these provisions. i'm sure they learned quite a bit by scrubbing the provisions.
and then checking back with the institutional history of commission over the last 20 years. enforcement has been a problematic area. a lot of it was tied to understaffing relative to mandates. of course, it is a an issue now as far as looking at budget cuts. but i did want to suggest to the deputy that she might want to review really for the public's interest the item number six on page two of the memo, the staff memo, of what will happen if a person -- a defendant, essentially, does not reply and goes into denial. that is an unavoidable -- has been an avoidable, i think, situation that has not been
sufficiently addressed until now and i thought it would be useful for the public to walk -- be walked through to show them the consequences of their inability to meet the realities of a charge and that their interests, fundamental interests are not well-served. i also wanted to say that, regarding the sunshine ordinance provisions, those were drafted, i believe, by commissioner herrington when she was chair. i noted in 2013. and i wanted to say that it was a very helpful exercise to try to come to grips with these ethics complaints that were coming to the commission and were basically left in an inbox
and not really sufficiently handled by our regses. but it does behoove us now to go back and scrub those regs now that we've had more experience with them. so, this is our second bite of this apple. and i wanted to commend the commission for taking that review up in the context of this overall review of our enforcement regs. thanks. >> thank you. >> hi. good afternoon. >> was shocked to hear that your representative spoke and said the sunshine ordinance task force, the only function is that you [inaudible] party. sunshine ordinance -- sunshine
task force issued the order determination after minimum of two hearings. most of the time three hearings. sometimes more than three hearings to issue the violation. and the department really don't care about that. because they know that it is a piece of paper. there's no consequence. all they can do is ask them for more budgets and then get over time, come to the hearing and not quoting the facts and saying that i don't have to provide documents. this is my only experience. years ago, sunshine task force, after hearing, refer my case to your commission. unfortunately i don't even have a chance to present my case before you. the case was dismissed because the case was [inaudible] support the finding or the order. and then the recent case i'm talking about this year, august
i make this sunshine disclosure request, ignore. and then i remind them, hey, you did not respond to my immediate disclosure request, ignore. and then i filed the sunshine complaint, sunshine sent them an e-mail, tell them that you are required within five business days to sub miss your written responses. ok? this is long page. and they ignore also. before the hearing, sunshine hearing, the representative willfully [inaudible] and says once we provide her previous sunshine request for this document on different day, we don't have to provide her anymore. and after three hearings now for my august, sunshine immediate disclosure, the last hearing was december 6. ok? and then september, of course, december.
and then they finally ordered against the department -- planning department, ok? you can look at her face. she was smiling when i walked out. because there is no consequences and we depend on you to enforce the sunshine ordinance. that's all i want to say today. thank you very much. >> thank you. any further public comment? >> yeah. >> go to the lower microphone if i turn that on. >> my name is nancy croft and -- my name is nancy croft and i'm here to express some concern, or at least question
whether the commission investigates a complaint. and the definition of a complaint. is it a verified complaint? if it's not a verified complaint, it's -- where is the probable cause for you to investigate? why should you national convention side process of investigating one side privately and then maybe the other side privately and deciding that there is no probable cause? you can't do that in a court hearing that would have any respect to it. i'm caught in a situation in relation to the [inaudible] department. and it says yes, we have a wide array of way to open the doors to a shelters if a person is 18 years old and can't take care
of theirselfs but it gives the shelter manager power to dismiss that person without any fair hearing. and without any fair process. the shelter director can do this just -- he saw this staff member -- no, not him. but somebody else told him that somebody in the shelter had attack one of their employees. therefore, that person should be dismissed from the shelter. now there is no fair hearing at all. and they have a funny little processes that says -- and the shelter manager can conduct where a person being evicted from the shelter simply in private tete-a-tete. this is a place for bribery. this is how we get corruption.
having somebody with a power to do violence and putting a person on the streets. and going through this process with the person two is bringing the charge but not made any of their hearing. it is not a fair process. the rules of evidence are not provided. we needed to look at the people who are disadvantaged by our system to a subclass. therefore you're at fault. and we can steal from you and you have no remedy from the stealing. there's no fair process. i would like the ethics committee to look into how the homeless situation is -- is dealt with.
the grand jury dealt with homelessness in 19 -- in 2002 and the board of supervisors suppressed the publication and never responded to -- and neither did the pay your or the department to that situation. the clerk's office can tell you all about it. and i can, too, if i have more time. and i -- i think this is very much at the heart of what you can -- what you could be doing and should be doing to take care of the most hit people in our community and to protect us from what the president wants to do to manage for us. >> thank you. >> commissioner kopp? >> do complaints have to be verified by law? >> no, they do not. they can be submitted.
if they're verify, then we're required -- >> that our law or state law? >> that is our law. >> thank you. any further public comment? so, this room will still be your desire to have further discussion of this next -- at our next meeting and commissioner kopps requests relating to the city attorney. ok. is there a motion -- >> mr. chairman, before i make a motion to continue it one month, a couple more questions. >> sure. >> there is reference to a law enforcement agency. are we deemed under state law a law enforcement agency? >> that is a matter of some debate. >> hmm? >> that is a matter of some debate. probably not. but sometimes we try to -- >> can you give me a specific
answer on that by next meeting? >> sure. >> and then secondly, under the california public records act, can a local jurisdiction's law reduce that 10-day response? >> yes. we could be stricker. >> we do have that legal power? >> i believe so. we're stricker in the sunshine ordinance on a couple of occasions. >> i'll make a motion to continue this mare. >> a second to the motion? >> is second. >> any further discussion among the commissioners? all right. so, all those in favour of the motion say aye? oppose nod? motion carries unanimously and the matter is continued to further discussion to our next meeting in january. we go now to item number six,
which is discussion and possible action on staff memorandum, updating the commission on proposed rules and there are attachesments of december 13, 2017 staff report and attachments. there's mr. ford. >> thank you, chair. good afternoon, commissioners. pat ford, policy analyst. ok. the memorandum and agenda item six analyzes staff analysis up to this point of certain proposals regarding online political communications. that way of background on september 22 an op-ed appeared in the chronicle regarding certains les that the city and county should take up to address perceived problems regarding online political communications. this op-ed was by former fppc and fec chair anne raffle and two law professors from u.c. davis and abbey wood from the
university of southern california. a the october commission meeting, members of the public and the commission expressed interest of having staff look into these proposals and analyze whether or not they could be possible action items for the commission to take. so, as a result, we followed up with anne ravel and we had a meeting in our office on november 20 that commissioners lee and chu were present at as well as a lot of our staff members to look at different aspects of how these proposals could possibly be implemented and this memo sets forth some of the major proposal and what staff believes would be the best way forward on these. starting on page two, the major proposele that staff believes is worthwhile to do further analysis of is a concept of a
kind of archive wherein online platforms think of facebook, twitter, and other websites that provide advertising space or other areas for people to spread political communications. these kind of platforms would archive certain data about these paid communications. that data would include not the identity necessarily of the person paying for it, but the amount paid, the content of the communication, the way that the communication was targeted to particular groups and this data would be available to the public on some kind of public online database, yet to be determined whether that would be one central database or individual ones maintained by each platform. but the general concept is that this would be publicly available information. staff wants to move forward with further analysis of this. we think there is a potential
that this could be worth implementing. however, we have a lot of questions that we'd want to look into first. we think the best way would be to convene some sort of forum or panel where we would invite the professors as well as other experts in this arena to come and speak with staff, with members of the commission and another as to what they think are the unique changs and solutions that we need to be cognizant of. this iss a novel approach. we don't know of any jurisdiction that currently has this kind of archive. it is roughly analogous of the fe ral law for broadcasting networks but it is different and much more complex because it covers such a i wider aray of communication styles. instead of just radio, television, more traditional platforms, we're talking about
new and very diverse sets of communications ranging from social media to more traditional websites so we think it would be best if we could get the brightest minds that are looking at this cutting edge areaing to and explore the area. at the bottom here of page two, we laid out a rough timeline to organize our ongoing analysis of this. the first thing we'd like to do is carry out that forum that i described and start reaching out to people shortly and exploring when we could have that at the next meeting, we'd like to come and present our findings, summarizing for you what we gathered from that. and what our conclusions are from that as to whether or not
we should forward. at the following meeting we would worth with some kind of proposal, an actual set of rules that would lay out this kind of archiving approach if, in fact, the result of the form seems to indicate that this would be a good idea. there is three other proposals, other than the archiving ones that are listed here. but staff is not recommending that any three of these -- or fi of these three are items that the chising should take action on. this should show you that san francisco is ahe of curve when you look at the federal system and other state's laws. the proposals made by anne ravel and the two professors are not gauged specifically at san francisco. they are looking nationally and at other jurisdictions. so, some of those proposals
don't really indicate things that we need to change. one of those is the definition of electioneer for communications. at the federal level, they are exempted. but under san francisco law, that is not the case. in fact, we get filings if our office of internet communications. so, this isn't an area where we need to be looking at to expand. this is already encompassing this mode of communication. likewise, the electioneering communications window is much broader in san francisco than it is at the federal level. at the federal level, it's 30 days before a primary election and0 days before a general election. but in san francisco, it is 90 days before any election, which is much broader. and lastly on page four, state law has an impracticalability disclaimer and talking about political ads that have to be