|
Continued discussion of Ethics Commission responses to Sunshine Ordinance violation referrals (discussion and possible action) (no attachment)
Chair Knee said he would like to ask the Ethics Commission what it meant by "conducted an investigation" because the investigation was done by the Task Force and referred to the commission only for enforcement. He also wanted to know what procedures the commission or staff followed, who participated in the investigation, was anybody from the Task Force invited to testify or submit written testimony, was the complainant contacted and whether the case was investigated by staff and/or rubber-stamped by the commission.
Chair Knee also said the Task Force should strongly object to Ethics Commission Executive Director John St. Croix's statements that said compliance would create a security breach in the District Attorney's Office in the 07077_Allen Grossman v District Attorney referral case and that the City Attorney is a higher authority than the Task Force when it comes to determining the legal duties of City departments in the 07094_Kimo Crossman v City Attorney referral case.
Member Craven said the security breach statement was worrisome and was not surprised that the commission saw that the City Attorney opinion trumps the Task Force's finding. She suggested providing follow-up information when the findings of the Task Force and Ethics Commission are not in agreement. She also suggested providing the commission with clear and detailed information in further referrals and Orders of Determination.
Doug Comstock, former Task Force chair said, he found the letters very troubling because the commission had in previous cases stated that they were dismissing the cases because of insufficient evidence. Now, he said, they are saying that the Task Force made a mistake, a tack that they have never taken before. It is not the commission's duty to determine what is or is not a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance, he said. Its duty is to enforce the punishment, that there was no excuse for it and that it was overstepping its bounds, he added. He suggested inviting Ethics Commission Chair Susan J. Harriman to come for a hearing and have her present the commission's point of view rather than the director's point of view. He said gaining that insight was important because it would show the Task Force what direction it should take in rewriting the ordinance. The commission is a dead-end and a negative force, he said, and it was time for the Task Force to file a Sunshine complaint against the commission for failure to hand over records of the investigations. He said he could do it or his employer, the Westside Observer, would be willing to do it.
Member Craven reminded the Task Force that based on the 07056_Myrna Lim v Ethics Commission complaint, the commission had stated that its investigation files were confidential even though the Task Force disagreed. She did not see any merit in asking for the files because the commission has said the Charter trumps the Sunshine Ordinance. That issue, she said, has to be resolved in a court of law and it would not happen unless someone files a lawsuit through a complaint.
Mr. Comstock said the Task Force needs to do something dramatic to get its point across because the commission does not consider the Task Force valuable and is not paying attention to it. Task Force deliberations are a waste of government money as far as the commission is concerned, he said. He said the Task Force could approach the supervisors, tell them what was occurring and see where they stand.
After further discussion, Member Craven agreed to draft a letter to the Ethics Commission.
Item continued to next meeting.
|