SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
4:00 p.m. City Hall, Room 408
Roll Call
All present: Appel, Bernstein, Brugmann, Cauthen, Courtney,
Guillory, Hogan, Kowalczuk, Planthold, Ray.
Member Judy Appel submitted her resignation effective
after this meeting. Chair appointed Daniel Guillory to serve on the Complaint
Committee. Third member of the Complaint Committee will be Paul Hogan.
Agenda Changes
1. Minutes of March 27, 2001
Motion adopted approving minutes of March 27, 2001 with
attachment submitted by Bruce Brugmann. (Hogan/Ray) (Courtney no) (Attachment
attached)
No public comment.
2. Report from Chair
(a) Letter to Deputy City Attorney Buck Delventhal regarding
Clements/Jamerson complaints
Deputy City Attorney Jackie Minor excused herself from
this item; Deputy City Attorney Buck Delventhal answered questions of the
Task Force.
Chair stated the issue seems to be if the appointment
was correctly made by the Chair of the Commission, or if the Commission
should have made the appointment.
Deputy City Attorney Delventhal stated there are two
issues--who had the authority to make these appointments and the other is
a claim of somehow there was a violation of the Brown Act or the Sunshine
Ordinance in terms of communications outside of meetings; in terms of who
had the authority to make this appointment, it is not within the scope of
the jurisdiction of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force; if it is demonstrated
that the chair of the Human Rights Commission did consult with a majority
of the members of the Commission outside of a meeting, that is something
you do have the authority to sort out and provide a remedy. The Chair suggestion
that this item go back to the Complaint Committee and the Committee ask
persons from the Mayor’s Office and HRC to explain which committee this
is, is the appropriate place to sort this out.
Bruce Brugmann stated there is a serious problem here
of conflict of interest regarding the City Attorney. Would like to redo
my original motion to send this item to the Board of Supervisors, then to
the City Attorney, then to the Attorney General.
Deputy City Attorney Delventhal stated he thought it
was very unlikely the Attorney General would answer this question even if
the City Attorney did ask for the advice; there is a factual dispute about
which committee this person is on, and the Attorney General is not going
to sort out that issue of local law; there is a factual dispute between
the chair and Ms. Clements about what happened; what the Attorney General
will tell you, as we have told you, is if the chair of the Human Rights
Commission talked to a majority of the members about this appointment outside
the meeting, that is a violation of the Brown Act, and if she didn’t, that
isn’t a violation, and the Attorney General will not get into deciding these
facts.
Motion to refer to the Complaint Committee to analyze
and suggest further action.
(Hogan/Courtney) This was a discussion item. Not voted
on.
Deputy City Attorney Delventhal stated he would undertake
to get people from the HRC who know the history of these committees to come
before the Committee to see if we can sort this out.
Chair sending this item back to Complaint Committee
to review the core issue and bring it back to the full Task Force; to come
before the Task Force again.
(b) Letter from Bruce Brugmann regarding additional questions-see
Item 8.
(c) Memo to Board of Supervisors Rules Committee regarding
ethnic makeup of Task Force
(d) Other agency compliance with Sunshine Ordinance
Public Education and Information Committee to continue
work on outreach, including contacting the School District regarding their
discussion of implementation of the Sunshine Ordinance.
No public comment.
3. Further hearing on the complaint of Dawn Clements and
Harry Jamerson
related to appointments to the Minority/Women Business
Advisory Committee of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission
Chair Bernstein stated Claimant Dawn Clements declined
to appear. Claimant Harry Jamerson was not present. This item referred back
to the Complaint Committee for review and will come back to the full Task
Force.
No public comment.
4. Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Index and Retention Schedule
Administrator Donna Hall submitted the Records Retention
and Destruction Schedule for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Motion adopted
approving the schedule. (Appel/Planthold)
Public comment from male speaker asking about the records
index. Deputy City Attorney Minor
explained the index process.
6. Report from Rules Committee
Chair Bob Planthold stated it was the recommendation of
the Rules Committee for a by-laws amendment relating to, Article VII, Attendance,
changing from three to four if a member of the Task Force misses meetings
in a twelve-month period of time; and changing from may to shall to notify
the Board of Supervisors and request action be taken to remove the member
from the Task Force.
Comments from Members Brugmann asking if other groups
have these kinds of regulations; this is another measure for the Chair or
whomever to bounce people from the Task Force; wold recommend this go back
to committee and a survey be done of all the rest of the task forces in the
city abide by; from Member Cauthen regarding the importance of having quorums;
I was for expanding the number of meetings missed to four and then using shall;
from Member Courtney opposed to one month dealing with expanding the powers
of the chair and now dealing with this; take a look at what some of the other
commissions have done; would like to see a survey; would like to see some
other language that dealt with the chair; we do have an attendance policy
in place.
Member Hogan stated one of the reasons why we have been
able to conduct business as efficiently as we have is because we did adopt
quite stringent attendance policy in by-laws; Member Hijazi stated when she
was staffing a commission, because they faced problems of a quorum, they placed
restrictions on attendance; Member Planthold stated the notification is something
that already exists-if the recommendation is approved, you could miss one-third
of the meetings; seems reasonable to raise the question of frequency of attendance
if you miss one-third of the meetings; this doesn’t call for a recommendation
for removal, just reporting.
Member Appel stated we might want to stated that if a
member of the Task Force misses more than four regular meetings in any twelve-month
period of time, the Task Force may request that action be made to notify the
Board of Supervisors; my opinion is that our current policy is fine.
Moved to adopt recommendation as recommended by the Rules
Committee (Hogan). No second to the motion.
Member Appel stated when we first discussed the initial
language was to allow a degree of respect and a manner to recognize individual
circumstances, and enough of a rule in place that people would know it was
important to attend, and not to be reported to the Board of Supervisors if
they missed three or four meetings in a year; not aware of a full Task Force
meeting where there hasn’t been a quorum; feel these amendments show a lack
of respect for the members of the Task Force.
Member Planthold stated the Task Force tried several years
ago to find out how many public bodies there are and couldn’t find out then,
and the Grand Jury did a list and it is still growing and still unknown; Rules
Committee had information and examples that we culled down to use for our
recommendation; the closest example that we came up with, but not the sole,
was the Asian Art Museum; we are not just picking and choosing.
Member Courtney stated that after having given additional
powers to the Chair, at least we should have some examples. Chair Bernstein
stated that "when persons express an opinion that they make certain that
it is an opinion, that we do not speak as if we are talking for everybody-think
it is valid for you to think that the powers of the Chair have been extended
and expanded-it is not necessarily the view of everybody else."
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated the Rules Committee
looked at examples of by-laws of about ten commissions and task forces; could
make these available for members of the Task Force.
Moved to return this item to the Rules Committee and request
the Deputy City Attorney to review other by-laws from other commissions and
task forces on how they addressed attendance.
(Appel/Brugmann) (Ayes Appel, Brugmann, Courtney) (Noes
Ray, Bernstein, Kowalczuk, Planthold, Guillory, Hogan, Cauthen) The motion
failed.
Member Hogan spoke against the motion to refer back to
the Rules Committee.
Motion adopted to adopt the recommendation of the Rules
Committee for the amendment of Section VII of the By-Laws, as drafted. (Hogan/Cauthen)
(Ayes Cauthen, Hogan, Planthold, Kowalczuk, Bernstein) (Noes Guillory, Ray,
Courtney, Brugmann, Appel)
Moved to call the question. (Hogan) (Ayes Kowalczuk, Bernstein,
Planthold, Hogan, Cauthen) (Noes Guillory, Appel, Brugmann, Courtney, Ray)
The motion failed.
Member Brugmann stated the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force
should not take these policy decisions without a certain amount of work and
research and survey results laid before us so we can discuss the alternatives
right here at this meeting and not take these kinds of decisions without that
kind of research.
Member Hogan stated the Rules Committee has looked at
this twice; the Task Force has taken action on this once; if this issue has
not come up yet, I think this is somehow indicative of people not paying attention
until now; any call to delay this is just a simple political move because
somebody does not like this; do not think this is a policy decision that has
not had adequate consideration by this Task Force and by committees doing
the work of this Task Force; think it is very important to require the members
of this Task Force not to just drop in and to use this as a political vehicle
to further whatever interest they may have and to require attendance and participation
at the meetings; think we have had enough discussion and debate.
Member Hijazi left the meeting at this time.
Member Planthold stated it was the recommendation of the
Rules Committee for the following recommendation for attendance at committee
meetings:
Members of committees shall notify the Task Force Administrator
if she or he is unable to attend a committee meeting. If a committee member
misses more than four regular meetings in any 12-month period of time, the
committee chair shall notify the Task Force Chair. The Task Force Chair
shall contact the committee member regarding their interest or lack of interest
in serving on a specific committee.
Motion adopted approving the recommendation of the Rules
Committee. (Cauthen/Hogan) (Ayes Courtney, Bernstein, Kowalczuk, Planthold,
Guillory, Hogan, Cauthen) (Noes Ray, Brugmann, Appel)
No public comment.
10. Public Comment
Female speaker spoke regarding what the Task Force is
doing is fantastic.
Emeric Kalman spoke regarding publication of notices in
the newspapers difficult to read; not user friendly; requested information
on contract; need representation from the District Attorney regarding complaints.
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated the City Administrator administers the contract
for publication. Member Hare stated the cost of publications is around $600,000
for all publications; all agendas of the Board and Board Committees are published
in their entirety.
Marie Harrison spoke regarding printing of entire agenda-do
you print the results-is Independent the only newspaper that has the contract?
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated the Independent has the contract by an ordinance
passed by the Board of Supervisors; actions are posted on the internet and
through the Clerk of the Board.
Male speaker spoke regarding contract of publication;
at the onset were very readable.
Marie Crispie spoke regarding her pleasure of the Sunshine
Ordinance Task Force.
Member Kowalczuk left the meeting at this time.
7. Report from Ad Hoc Committee Regarding Conflict of Interest
Committee Chair Member Planthold stated the last meeting
of the Ad Hoc Committee was March 9 at which time Member Guillory was requested
to prepare a report summarizing the City Attorney’s role vis-à-vis
the Task Force; the Committee has not met since that time. The next Committee
meeting will be set soon and will be down to three members with the resignation
of Judy Appel.
No public comment.
5. Report from Public Education & Information Committee
Committee Chair Hogan reported the Committee will be working
with the Task Force Administrator to draft a letter to neighborhoods; already
have three outreach meeting scheduled, May 15 with the Coalition for San Francisco
Neighborhoods; June 10 League of Women Voters Meeting; June 27 Democratic
Central Committee.
Member Planthold requested the Committee look into setting
meetings with other partisan groups also.
No public comment.
8. Request for information from the City Attorney’s Office
on possible "conflicts with representation on the Sunshine Ordinance Task
Force."
Member Brugmann stated from last meeting I asked questions
in writing of the City Attorney; I put it in motion form for two sets of questions;
the City Attorney replied on April 11; she answered one of the questions,
what duties the Deputy has been assigned to other than her work with the Task
Force, but she avoids another; still do not have any specific evidence of
what the Deputy was doing with the Human Rights Commission; have with us another
letter of April 19 from Western Select Securities and Dawn Clements raising
other specific issues of the Deputy’s conflict of interest; not a personal
criticism of Jackie Minor as the Deputy assigned to the Task Force; do not
see how any of us can move further until we have answers to specific questions.
Member Brugmann stated questions are "to explain,
with completeness and specificity, what Ms. Minor did for the Human Rights
Commission during the six months she was assigned to work there; to explain
the City Attorney’s position on whether it posed a conflict for your office
to have Ms Minor assigned simultaneously to the Task Force and the HRC; and
request that the Task Force again ask the City Attorney to provide written
assurances that the Deputy City Attorney has been ethically walled off from
any matters within the City Attorney’s Office."
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated "the work I did
for the Human Rights Commission, the hours associated with the work I did
for the Human Rights Commission, clearly covered by an attorney client privilege,
it will not be disclosed to this Task Force, that is not information you are
entitled to have; what I have done for today is to prepare a document that
lists the three Human Rights Commission Sunshine complaints that were filed
during the last six or seven months or so; in each of the three discussions
of those complaints I do state whether or not I advised the Human Rights Commission
on that matter; prior to my assignment to this Task Force, it was my understanding
that previous Sunshine Ordinance Task Force had made a decision that it wanted
no attorney client privilege relationship with the City Attorney’s Office
and specifically asked that no communication from our office be considered
subject to the attorney client privilege; I am aware of no other City department
or agency that has authorized the City Attorney to waive its privilege, and
all the questions asked in Question 1 would result in a waive of the privilege
that HRC has."
Member Brugmann asked if the Deputy City Attorney could
answer any of the questions in Question 1. Deputy City Attorney Minor stated
she would not waive the privilege her client holds. Member Brugmann stated
the City Attorney should not put our Deputy in that position in the HRC. Deputy
City Attorney Minor stated "there is nothing I read in the Sunshine Ordinance
that would compel the City Attorney’s Office in order to satisfy your interest
in knowing what is happening at the HRC to waive a privilege that the HRC
has, specifically for anything that is not sunshine related; you have a number
of attorneys on this Task Force, and I think any attorney on this body would
indicate to you that the subject matter of an assignment performed by an attorney
for a client is subject to a privilege."
Member Brugmann asked "why did not the City Attorney
inform us that you were at the HRC and would have these dual conflicts so
we would have been able to judge this at the time and not have to deal with
all of these complains coming down the pike; if that was the case, if you
were there and were doing things that you couldn’t talk about because of attorney
client, why didn’t you disclose to this group that you had these conflicts-or
the City Attorney-I am talking about the City Attorney-I am not talking about
you personally."
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated "I understand that;
I work for the City Attorney; I am the Deputy who is assigned to advise this
Task Force; the issues that are being raised by this Task Force as it relates
to interpretation of the Sunshine Ordinance, I do not take those personally
at all; unfortunately, members of the public, certain members of the public,
reading about the concerns that have been raised by this Task Force, have
in fact undertaken a personal campaign of attack which attacks my integrity,
my veracity, and I do think my license to practice law, I have a license to
practice law in three states in this country; it is being jeopardized because
questions are being raised about whether the Deputy assigned to this Task
Force is violating the law; the interrogatories, the questioning, they are
legitimate questions, but I do think you do need to understand that to the
extent this it is translated by uniformed members of the public into personal
attacks on Jacqueline Minor and her license to practice law is put at jeopardy
because of these unfounded allegations, letters that are factually inaccurate;
I do take that personally, and I have to take that personally because I am
the one who passed the bars in three states, not the City Attorney."
Member Brugmann asked if she could give us assurances
in writing, the City Attorney, that you or whoever replaces you will have
an ethical wall around you and that there will be proper disclosures in the
future so this action doesn’t happen to you or anyone else. Deputy City Minor
stated the City Attorney was contacted at the end of September by the Chair
of this Task Force initially raising the question about my assignment at the
HRC. My assignment at the HRC was not a secret, there was no effort to be
covert about it, it was a very public assignment.
Member Appel stated at this point the City Attorney has
removed Ms Minor from the HRC and has limited the activity of the person who
is assigned to the Task Force to pretty much the Task Force; not a smart decision
on the City Attorney part to place the attorney for this Task Force to a commission
that was very much in the public eye; I have complete confidence in Ms Minor’s
integrity; every time something came up before this Task Force that involved
a complaint that took place during the time she was a member of the Task Force,
someone else stepped in; concern to me that Ms Minor become a target of a
mistake the City Attorney made; as an attorney I feel that Ms Minor has no
choice but to not reveal that information; feel Question 3 which is a question
to the City Attorney if she will follow through with our request is very appropriate;
sorry to hear Ms Minor is becoming personally a target.
Chair Bernstein stated it was a gross mistake to place
Ms Minor in that position; disclaimers to the contrary, the attacks are personal,
there is no way to separate that out.
Member Courtney stated "I was attacking what we were
doing with the Chair and the powers of the Chair, and that was not a personal
attack; Jackie sits in that chair; very sympathetic with Jackie; bad move
that she was placed in this position; concerned about an inherent conflict
within the City Attorney Office; the fact they share data bases, computers;
do not think an ethical wall can be put up between Jackie Minor and Catharine
Barnes that doesn’t still jeopardize the complainant’s position; will go back
to the matter we had with the Planning Commission; someone was able to access
information on the item prior to our hearing; the lawyer on the Planning Commission
shares office space with Ms Minor; having a City Attorney who really is not
an advocate for sunshine is preventing us from doing our job and preventing
the complainant from getting a real fair shake; I like Ms Minor but do not
think she is really our lawyer; when the Planning Commission or the HRC, or
whomever comes up against the complainant, in all honesty, no matter who it
is from the City Attorney’s Office, I think it is their lawyer."
Member Planthold left the meeting at this time.
Member Ray left the meeting at this time.
Chair Bernstein stated the way you get absolute and total
assurance of impartiality and total commitment is if you have a budget and
hire your own attorney.
Member Cauthen stated disappointed about lack of civility
of the Task Force; when deliberations appear in the Bruce’s paper and not
in any other paper, people read them uninformed, and the person who gets pilloried
is Ms Minor and I think she is an innocent victim of circumstances.
Member Guillory stated a lot of these issues of conflict
of issues are being addressed in the Ad Hoc Committee; we will be coming back
with information on the general conflict of interest issue; secondly with
what has already taken place, the meetings with the City Attorney have at
least changed the situation going forward; don’t feel we need to continue
to revisit the history of what happened last year; the only remaining complaint
is the Clement complaint; feel comfortable that Ms Minor’s involvement with
HRC has not had any compromising effect on our ability to make a determination
in this matter; in going forward there are things to talk with the City Attorney
about, and that is why we have this ad hoc committee; revisiting the history
is not the best use of our time.
Member Hogan stated "we are in an election year for
the City Attorney, and there are people on the committee who have very well
known points of view on that issue; what I object to in these proceedings
is my time as a member of the public trying to guarantee the public access
to records, documents and meetings, used to create news in order to embarrass
the City Attorney; I have not taken a political position one way or the other;
however, I can see through these proceedings into what they really are for
and I really object to them going on at all; I would hope we could get to
the business of the public guaranteeing them access to records and meetings
and quit with this political shenanigans at these meetings."
Member Cauthen stated she read the minutes of the Ad Hoc
Conflict of Interest Committee and it is very clear, Thomas Burke said, that
there was never the intention that the Deputy City Attorney would be assigned
solely to our group; he did say the ethical wall was important; and he did
say other matters in this vein were important; it was never the intent of
the framers of the ordinance that the attorney would be solely our attorney.
Member Appel stated she apologized for statements without
having something to back it up; respects the members of this committee; "I
do not think the issue of conflict of interest with regard to the City Attorney
is just a political move of the Guardian; this is core in many ways of resolution
of the many issues we are talking about; there are issues about whether or
not the City Attorney can really act as our counsel in these issues or whether
or not they have a conflict between trying to limit the liability of the City
and the departments and provide the greatest access possible; this campaign
to make sure to ensure we have real counsel is important and key to the very
heart of this committee and not just a political issue; feel it is dangerous
for this committee to be disturbed by the fact that there is one newspaper
in this town that is paying attention to this issue; none of us would be here
if we didn’t think that it was an important; the Guardian is the only newspaper
in town that cares about this issue; we should applaud the fact that someone
is watching."
Member Brugmann stated "these are major policy issues;
want to make sure this Sunshine Ordinance Task Force and Sunshine Ordinance
works; no political career; not running for anything; issue is a matter of
policy, citizen participation and open government; the reason I have asked
these questions is to make the point that the very fact that Ms Minor cannot
answer the questions because of attorney client illustrates my point; she
should never have been put into that position; asked there be written assurances
there would be an ethical wall; when we wrote the Sunshine Ordinance we thought
about this ahead of time and put the word solely in there so this would not
happen; so the Deputy here would not be the Deputy somewhere else, particularly
the HRC; whether or not the Task Force wants to pursue these questions, I
recommend the City Attorney answer the questions because there is a public
forum and it is important that the City Attorney be as unconflicted as possible
and be able to operate on an independent, unbiased basis."
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated "I spent 20 years
in the private sector, 17 years at Pacific Bell, my last five years at Pacific
Bell I reported to the General Counsel and the Board of Pacific Telesis, the
holding company, because I was asked to lead an organization that would company-wide
correct compliance issues related to the PUC; in the five years that I did
that job at Pacific Bell, there were no citations by the PUC; the five years
prior to my doing that job, $50 million in citations against Pacific Bell
for various non-compliance issues as a public utility; I tell this because
it is important that you understand a little bit about my background."
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated "I think since
I have been in this job and since I have been advising this Task Force, and
certainly since the enactment of Prop G, this City has fundamentally changed
the way we respond to public records; people are not lined up outside this
door filing complaints; the issues when I first attended the Sunshine Task
Force meeting in April 1999, Judy Appel was on the other side representing
the Coalition on Homelessness on issues related to the deliberative process
privilege; the Coalition on Homelessness has not been back here; is it perfect,
no it is not perfect; are there issues related to getting documents to citizens,
opening meetings, yes, there are still some issues, we still have a long way
to go; we have fundamentally as a City improved greatly the way we are responding;
the fact that this Task Force exists that you are more effective as a body
also has given me both a carrot and a stick to facilitate citizens getting
access to records and meetings, and it is much better, and I think you have
to applaud the work you have done and be careful the relationship you have
with the Deputy City Attorney assigned to this Task Force continues to be
a relationship that is collaborative, where we work together; I am an old
fashioned attorney, I believe that I have to be an attorney who works at will;
if I don’t meet your will, I should not be here."
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated "I want no protection
to insure that I have a job; if I can’t function effectively advising this
Task Force, I really don’t want to be here, I want to be reassigned; at the
same time I cannot come to a meeting, I cannot continue to provide a level
of support, not only for this Task Force, but for the function of public access
in the City, which I believe is so important, if I believe that I am being
attacked and undermined by my clients, and you are my clients; I think we
do need to work together; we need to support each other in this effort; if
we continue to do that we are going to improve access for all the citizens
in San Francisco."
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated "the letter dated
April 19, again I want to be very clear that I have been a City employee for
two years; if I could have engaged in half the mischief that is represented
in this letter, I would have been a very busy bee for these two years; it
is factually inaccurate, and because it is factually inaccurate it leads the
writer to inaccurate legal conclusions and to requests on the part of this
Task Force which is just fundamentally faulty, and there is no basis involved
for it."
Deputy City Attorney Minor stated "Bruce has asked
for written assurances that there is an ethical wall; I wasn’t sure how to
treat this request because we do not have a document in the City Attorney’s
Office that outlines an ethical wall; in January this year when Louise Renne
contacted Hilda and indicated that I was going to be assigned to this Task
Force and I would be taken off various other assignments that conflicted with
providing sunshine advice, that was a representation about what my assignments
were going forward since January 2001; I am not sure what additional assurances
this Task Force needs over and above the word of the City Attorney as an elected
official to the Chair of this body; I don’t have such a document; if this
Task Force believes it wants a document from Louise it should send a request
directly to her."
Member Courtney stated "I refer to the letter that
we received November 27, 2000 from Louise Renne, privileged document, fifth
paragraph, regarding the ethical wall, `whenever such a wall is established,
the deputies on either side of the wall must refrain from accessing the files
of deputies on the other side or communicating with deputies on the other
side.’" Member Courtney stated "that is when a wall is established;
so, Catharine Barnes representing the HRC, Sunshine trying to give Kevin Williams
a fair shake in the complaint hearing process, we don’t have a writing, am
I right, that there is an ethical wall here between Catharine Barnes and Jackie
Minor; therefore is it safe for us to assume that it is okay with Louise Renne
if Jackie and Cathy prepare documents, prepare a memorandum together, discuss
the case, talk about the case, allow each other access to each other’s files;
is that okay; it seems to me absent an ethical wall or an assurance there
is one than that is normal business."
Member Hogan stated what has been described is conduct
that could have Ms Minor disbarred. Member Courtney stated this was not true;
"Mr. Chin came on behalf of the Planning Commission, handed us something,
so we had three documents in front of us; his printed out document was in
the same legal that our lawyer had prepared for us."
Member Hogan requested the allegations be backed up.
Chair Bernstein stated the conflict of interest issue
required two meetings with City Attorney Renne; finally she took Ms. Minor
off HRC, and any other department; according to the interpretation of the
ordinance by one of the lawyers who drafted it, sole does not mean exclusive;
what it means is that there will not be assignment to another department;
however, Ms. Minor is free to do certain other things where there is no other
possibility of conflict.
Chair Bernstein stated the discussion was over.
Member Appel stated in the practice of law having some
kind of an agreement about expectations of the client/attorney relationship;
might be something helpful; might provide some of the assurances.
Public comment from Marie Harrison regarding access to
Deputy City Attorney Minor’s files; Ms. Minor stated that unless she grants
access, no one has access; information then cannot be shared; no sharing of
information between attorneys.
Chair Bernstein stated she has worked closely with Ms.
Minor; confidence in her; think she is committed to open government; did a
bang-up job on training departments, getting down to the root core so that
we don’t have to have all these complaints; she has done other outstanding
work for us; regret that any discussion has been used outside of this Task
Force to be personally abusive.
Chair Bernstein wished Judy Appel good luck; thanked her
for her contributions to the Task Force.
9. Report of Administrator
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Submitted by
Donna L. Hall, Administrator