June 13, 2007

Approval of minutes of May 9, 2007.

Speakers: None

Motion to approve minutes of May 9, 2007. ( Craven / Knee )

Ayes: Knee, Craven

Absent: Comstock

Presentation by Joe Lynn, former Ethics Commission member, on suggested improvements to the Sunshine Ordinance and on the history of the Commission's incorporation into the City Charter.

Joe Lynn provided a history of the Ethic Commission (EC) and pointed to a number of problems:

Sunshine in San Francisco – documents only

• Bureaucratic hostility – citizen driven.
• Institutional conflict of City Attorney.
• Ethics missing in action – Civil Grand Jury.
• Exorbitant costs to the City, unneeded conflict, lack of transparency.

Mr. Lynn made several suggestions:

Steps to the Future

• Canvas the departments – get an idea of present costs to City.
• Hire Librarian and IT person to review document structures of the City.
• Study costs and benefits of legal privilege assertions – transparency should trump privilege.

Structural reform to assist the bureaucrats

• New agency to replace Ethics in accordance with Civil Grand Jury recommendations

• Independent counsel for agency.
• Educate the bureaucrats.

The Committee discussed with Mr. Lynn the makeup of the new agency.

Member Craven said that she isn't certain that having a low-level person from the new agency accessing documents within a department will lessen the bureaucracy, because the same institutional problems will still exist. She said that her greater interest is how the EC was structured so that it would have subpoena and enforcement powers and how the Sunshine Ordinance body might be structured to have some of the same powers. She said she needs to know the difference between a task force and a commission.

DCA Llorente responded that a task force is a body formed for a specific purpose and ends after that purpose is complete. It doesn't have the long-standing status that a commission has. The powers of a body are determined by the Charter, so the Sunshine Ordinance body would have to become a chartered commission rather than an ordinance task force.

Mr. Lynn responded that the Task Force can ask the Board of Supervisors to appoint it as a "master," which would authorize the Task Force to use the Board's subpoena power.

Member Craven asked Mr. Lynn to provide suggestion, if any, on Article IV of the Ordinance.

Member Comstock asked DCA Llorente if the Task Force could introduce a Charter change without going through the Board. DCA Llorente said that ordinance initiatives require approval of at least four Board members, but he doesn't believe that a Charter amendment may go on the ballot without a majority vote of the Board or a sufficient number of voters' signatures.

Speakers: Louis Dillon said that the Ethics Commission, by not conducting thorough investigations, are not effective or giving the violations that they review "due recognition."

Patrick Monette-Shaw suggested that the Task Force be given subpoena powers from the Board on a trial basis.

05039

Hearing on the status of the January 3, 2006, Order of Determination in re Louis Dillon vs. Golden Gate Park Stables Working Group.

The Administrator informed the Committee that he may have inadvertently failed to notify the Recreation and Parks Department of this hearing.

Chair Knee said that the Committee might need to continue the matter. Member Craven suggested that the Committee hear from Mr. Dillon before continuing the matter.

Speakers: Louis Dillon, Complainant, said the Golden Gate Park Stable Working Group (GGPSWG) had not met since the Order of Determination (OD). He asked the Committee to provide him with a written response saying the Committee has explored all possible avenues on this matter, and that he wants to explore what to do to move forward.

Chair Knee informed Mr. Dillon that since the working group has not met since the OD, there is nothing that can be done since there is no violation.

Member Comstock confirmed that Mr. Dillon received the minutes of the GGPSWG.

Member Craven indicated that the Order of Determination serves as the Task Force's written response.

By Committee consensus, no further action was taken.

07018

Hearing on the status of the April 24, 2007, Order of Determination in re Peter Warfield vs. Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

The Administrator informed the Committee that Mr. Warfield called to say that he could not attend the meeting, but that he (the Administrator) was prepared to address the matter.

Chair Knee, by Committee consensus, said that since the matter had been continued once, it would move forward.

Member Craven noted that a revised invoice had been provided to Mr. Warfield and asked Mr. Darby if the invoice had been paid.

Speakers: Frank Darby, Respondent, said the invoice had not been paid, nor was payment received for subsequent invoices for May. He said Mr. Warfield informed him today that he would pay the invoices.

By Committee consensus, no further action was taken.

07019

Hearing on the status of the April 24, 2007, Order of Determination in re Andrew Sisneros vs. Municipal Transportation Agency, Kirkland Division.

The Administrator informed the Committee that Mr. Sisneros called to say he could not attend the meeting, and wasn't certain when he would be able to attend, due to a change in his work schedule. Mr. Sisneros alleged that he did not receive all of the documents and requested a continuance. A Department representative opposed continuance.

Speakers: Ayn Antonio, Respondent, submitted a document signed by Mr. Sisneros acknowledging receipt of the documents.

Member Craven asked if the department had any additional records that had not been provided. Ms. Antonio responded that the department has no additional records that had not been provided.

By Committee consensus, no further action was taken.

07020

Hearing on the status of the May 22, 2007, Order of Determination in re Patrick Monette-Shaw vs. Department of Public Health.

Speakers: Patrick Monette-Shaw, Complainant, said the Department complied with the Order of Determination (OD). He urged the Committee to reject the Department's request for reconsideration of the OD. Larry Funk, Respondent, said the hospital has complied with the OD and requested that the Task Force reverse its ruling because the bodies that are subjects of the complaint, are not passive meeting bodies as defined in the Ordinance. He cited portions of a letter by John Kanaley, and said that the Department will continue to be transparent and comply with open government laws.

Mr. Shaw, in rebuttal, requested that the Committee reject the request to rescind the OD.

Member Craven said she saw no new information that warranted rescinding the OD.

Member Comstock said he believed the bodies are passive meeting bodies and he saw no reason to revisit the matter.

Mr. Funk said the hospital supports the Sunshine Ordinance, and is committed to open government and transparency; he repeated the request for exoneration.

Mr. Shaw said he had to push to get the agenda sent to him, and that the Task Force needed to weigh in on whether the Respondent should post passive meeting notices.

By Committee consensus, no further action was taken.

07021

Hearing on the status of the May 22, 2007, Order of Determination in re Kimo Crossman vs. Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

Member Craven said that since the Order Determination indicates that there was no violation, this matter did not need to be agendized.

By Committee consensus, this item was removed from the agenda.

Possible amendments to Sections 67.30 to 67.35 of the Sunshine Ordinance and subsequent sections as time permits.

Sec 67.30 The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

Sec 67.31 Responsibility for Administration.

Sec 67.32 Provision of Services to other Agencies; Sunshine Required.

Sec 67.33 Department Head Declaration.

Sec 67.34 Willful Failure Shall Be Official Misconduct.

Sec 67.35 Enforcement Provisions.

Sec 67.36 Sunshine Ordinance Supercedes Other Local Laws.

Sec 67.37 Severability.

Member Comstock expressed concern that the Task Force will not be able to make the deadline to get the proposed amendments on the November ballot.

Member Craven said the thoroughness of the review of the Ordinance by the CAC, coupled with compliance matters that have come before the CAC, contributed to the delay.

Chair Knee said it is important for the full Task Force to weigh in on the amendments and that Task Force members and the Board should be informed that the proposed amendments would not appear on the November ballot.

Member Craven said the main issue that the Task Force needs to discuss is the change from a Task Force to a Commission.

Speakers: Kimo Crossman asked if the Committee had received his e-mailed suggestions. The Committee confirmed receipt of his suggestions.

Administrator's report.

The Administrator made the report.

Speakers: Kimo Crossman said the Administrator uses "tick marks" to track inquiries, which are not acceptable.

Public comment on items not listed on the agenda.

Speakers: None.

Announcements, questions, and future agenda items from Committee members.

Speakers: None.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 p.m.

This meeting has been audio recorded and is on file in the office of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force