Board of Supervisors : June 26, 2001

SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE

REGULAR MEETING

MINUTES

Tuesday, June 26, 2001

4:00 p.m., City Hall, Room 408

Task Force Members

Seat 1 Vacant Seat 8 Robert Planthold

Seat 2 Bruce Brugmann Seat 9 Daniel Guillory

Seat 3 Vince Courtney Seat 10 Paul Hogan, Vice Chair

Seat 4 Marie Harrison Seat 11 Marjorie Williams

Seat 5 Tuesday Ray Ex-officio Lillian Hare

Seat 6 Hilda Bernstein, Chair Ex-officio Hala Hijazi

Seat 7 Ted Kowalczuk

Roll Call

Present: Brugmann, Harrison, Ray, Bernstein, Kowalczuk, Planthold, Guillory, Hogan, Williams

Absent: Courtney

Agenda Changes

Item No. 11, Public hearing, SEIU Local 790 & the Committee to Save Our Services, against the Department of Public Health. Request of Bayview Hunters Point Foundation to continue this hearing to July 24, 2001, moved to after Item No. 3.

Chair Bernstein welcomed new members Marjorie Ann Williams and Marie Harrison.

Chair Bernstein introduced Carol Woodward, legal counsel from San Mateo County Counsel’s Office, to advise the Task Force on conflict of interest issues.

1. Approval of Minutes of May 22, 2001.

Minutes approved. (Guillory/Harrison) (Courtney absent)

2. Report from Chair

Chair Bernstein reported on the following items:

(a) Marjorie Ann Williams, new member to the Task Force

(b) Prospective new member Joshua Koltun

(d) Outreach meeting attendance with League of Women Voters

(e) Task Force Committee attendance

3. Election of Officers

(a) Election of Chair

Hilda Bernstein nominated for Chair (Planthold). No further nominations.

Member Brugmann asked Chair Bernstein about questions to the media to be submitted to her in writing and she has two days to respond.

Public comment from Richard Knee stating he echoed Member Brugmann’s question.

Public comment from Dawn Clements regarding June 26, 2001 letter she submitted today to the Task Force regarding complaint of November 16, 2000 and letter of April 19, 2001 addressed to the Task Force regarding her unhappiness with how the Chair handled these two items.

Member Bernstein elected Chair. (Ayes: Harrison, Ray, Bernstein, Kowalczuk, Planthold, Guillory, Hogan, Williams) (Noes: Brugmann) (Absent: Courtney)

(b) Election of Vice Chair

Member Planthold nominated for Vice Chair (Kowalczuk). No further nominations.

Member Planthold elected Vice Chair. (Ayes: Brugmann, Harrison, Ray, Bernstein, Kowalczuk, Planthold, Guillory, Hogan, Williams) (Absent: Courtney)

11. Public hearing, SEIU Local 790 & the Committee to Save Our Services, against the Department of Public Health. Request of Bayview Hunters Point Foundation to continue this hearing to July 24, 2001.

Linda Zaretsky on behalf of SEIU Local 790 and the Committee to Save Our Services, addressed the Task Force stating opposition to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force granting the request of the Bayview Hunters Point Foundation to continue the scheduled agenda item addressing non-compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance until July 24, 2001; reservations regarding a continuance of this issue which will allow the Foundation to create the appearance of compliance without substantive change. Linda Zaretsky submitted letter dated June 22, 2001.

Member Planthold stated concern that Bayview Hunters Point Foundation is having tonight one of their two public meetings and did not notify the Task Force of their intent. Member Harrison stated Bayview Hunters Point Foundation has been unresponsive to her requests for information; look at motives of canceling themselves out of this meeting. Member Williams stated concern also.

Chair Bernstein stated she continued this hearing until July; have continued hearings before; felt it important that everyone has fair chance to deal with the issues; letter was received from Bayview Hunters Point Foundation requesting continuance of the hearing. Both Health Department and Bayview Hunters Point Foundation will be at the next meeting with evidence of adequate oversight and guidance from the Health Department, and compliance from Bayview Hunters Point Foundation.

4. Proposed Charter Amendment regarding Elections Commission

Deputy City Attorney Jackie Minor stated there are three different proposed charter amendments related to changes in the Elections Department; propose in some fashion an Elections Commission; Supervisor Gonzalez’ proposed charter amendment requests the Task Force to designate one of the seven members; if there are comments from the Task Force, they are to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.

Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board, stated it is part of the Board Rules to forward to departments, for comments, any charter amendments that may be affected by the legislation.

Comments from Task Force Members:

Question of terms: Sunshine terms are two years; proposal for Election Commission terms is five years; appointee might function without oversight if they served five years and the Sunshine Task Force were two years and Task Force was not around for the full term of the appointee. Comment that the appointment should be someone from outside the Task Force.

Noted that the proposed amendment states no member of the Elections Commission may hold any other public office or any employment with the City. This would preclude a Task Force Member from being a member of the Elections Commission. Would like some clarification on this point.

Comment that if it is not sure it is appropriate to appoint someone to deal with an issue that is outside the scope of authority of the appointing body.

Comment that two of the seven appointing officers come from criminal justice system; uncomfortable with concept in general. Comptroller was in another version, and an appointment from that body might be appropriate.

Comment that five-year term is an exceptionally long term.

Comment that if a person were appointed by the Task Force; the Task Force could remove the appointee.

Public comment from Doug Comstock stating he feels it is a good idea to have the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force appoint a member to the Elections Commission.

5. Report from Public Education & Information Committee

Chair Hogan reported on the Committee meeting of June 19, 2001

--Outreach meeting with League of Women Voters held

--Neighborhood letter and materials distributed

--Request of Rules Committee to review the wisdom of a community consultant to the Public Education & Information Committee; could use assistance; had in mind to invite Sue Cauthen to be the initial consultant

--Committee Chair Hogan thanked Sue Cauthen for the work she had completed for the Public Education & Information Committee.

--Additional contact to be made with college students and media

Member Planthold suggested Chair Bernstein appoint someone, before the next Rules Committee meeting, to fill the position of Tuesday Ray on the Rules Committee, who has resigned. Chair Bernstein asked Marjorie Ann Williams if she would sit on Rules Committee on an interim basis. Member Williams stated yes.

13. Public Comment

L. Harris asked about listing of neighborhood organizations.

Sue Cauthen spoke regarding non-profits and non-compliance.

Scott Trammell Moore spoke regarding complaint he filed today regarding seriatim meetings. Member Ray stated it is not appropriate for the Task Force to discuss the complaint at this time. Member Brugmann stated he had no idea what the complaint was about; prepared to go through the procedures.

Harry Jamerson spoke regarding his complaint against the Human Rights Commission. Member Harrison stated the complaint is not going to be swept under the rug. Member Williams stated the Task Force does not intend to let things go on a long time.

6. Report and recommendations from Complaint Committee

Chair Guillory reported on the Committee meeting of June 19, 2001.

(a) Specificity of agenda items and notification of delays of hearings and information to Task Force members.

Serve as model for clear, understandable agenda items; distributing information to Task Force members in timely manner.

(b) Dawn Clements’ letter of April 19, 2001

Letter of April 19, 2001 addressed to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force from Dawn Clements regarding alleged violation of the Sunshine Ordinance by Deputy City Attorney. (Complaint Committee voted 2-1 that there is no jurisdiction.)

Member Hogan spoke regarding rationale of favorable vote for recommendation of no jurisdiction from the Complaint Committee.

Member Brugmann spoke regarding rational of unfavorable vote for recommendation of no jurisdiction from the Complaint Committee.

Legal Counsel Carol Woodward stated it was her understanding of the April 19 letter from Ms. Clements is that Ms. Clements has taken a position that there is a violation of the State Bar Code of Ethics, which this Task Force has no jurisdiction to determine; if the Task Force wishes to declare there is a conflict, then there would have to be an ethical wall maintained; as "I understand it, the Task Force has not declared that such a conflict exists." Ms. Clements believes that a conflict exists; however that is not the same as the conflict existing.

Legal Counsel Woodward stated if the Task Force wishes to address whether there is a conflict of interest after which there should be an ethical wall maintained, then the Task Force has jurisdiction; if they wish to discuss the State Bar Code of Ethics and the question of whether there has been a violation, there is no jurisdiction here.

Member Harrison asked about legal counsel representation; legal counsel stated it was her understanding of the April 19 letter that Ms. Clements was complaining that Ms. Minor had a conflict of interest and by having one violated the State Bar Code of Ethics. Mr. Willis, counsel for Ms. Clements, stated the complaint is that there is a violation of Section 67.30 (a) of the Sunshine Ordinance.

James Quadra, counsel for Ms. Minor, stated objection to procedure that is being followed.

Member Harrison stated she did not have enough information to make a decision if the Task Force has jurisdiction.

Member Planthold stated he felt we did not have the evidence before us to say we should hear at any meeting that there was a conflict.

Member Harrison stated if we err, we err on the side of the public.

Chair Bernstein reiterated we are dealing with the issue of conflict of interest.

Public comment from L. Harris relating to report from Member Hogan.

Public comment from Sue Cauthen relating to role of Member Brugmann on the Task Force and the integrity of Counsel Minor.

Public comment from Raymond Willis relating to issue of jurisdiction of complaint.

Public comment from Jim Quadra relating to allegations of complaint; this is adverse employment action against a public employee; Task Force does not have authority to take adverse employment action.

Public comment from Scott Trammell Moore relating to seriatim issues.

Public comment from Doug Comstock relating to appearance of impropriety.

Public comment from Dawn Clements relating to Section 67.30 (a) determination.

Counsel Woodward stated determining a conflict in a particular attorney does not seem to be within the purview of the Task Force; believe the Task Force does have jurisdiction at some point to say they feel there is a conflict with the City Attorney representing the Human Rights Commission as well as the Task Force when there is a complaint against the Human Rights Commission; that has not happened; therefore there is no duty for Ms. Minor or the City Attorney to erect an ethical wall.

Chair Bernstein asked if the Task Force had jurisdiction in this matter. Counsel Woodward stated no.

Member Ray stated Ms. Minor is only the counsel for the Task Force; this issue is moot.

Member Planthold recommended the Task Force accept the recommendation of the Complaint Committee that there is no jurisdiction.

Moved by Member Brugmann, seconded by Member Guillory, to reject the committee report of no jurisdiction and conduct a hearing. (Ayes: Brugmann, Harrison, Williams) (Noes: Ray, Bernstein, Kowalczuk, Planthold, Guillory, Hogan) (Absent: Courtney). The motion failed.

Motion adopted accepting the recommendation of the Complaint Committee of no jurisdiction. (Guillory/Planthold) (Ayes: Harrison, Ray, Bernstein, Kowalczuk, Planthold, Guillory, Hogan) (Noes: Brugmann, Williams) (Absent: Courtney)

Member Harrison asked about the conflict of interest issue; Member Guillory stated the Ad Hoc Committee on Conflict of Interest is dealing with is the larger issue; that committee has nothing to do with dealing with this issue.

Hala Hijazi left the meeting at this time.

7. Public hearing, Dawn Clements’ letter of April 19, 2001 related to Deputy City Attorney assigned to the Task Force

Hearing in this matter did not proceed as the Task Force accepted the recommendation of the Complaint Committee of no jurisdiction.

8. Report and recommendation from Ad Hoc Committee Regarding Conflict of Interest

Chair Planthold reported on meeting of May 8 and June 19, 2001.

Letter of May 22, 2001 addressed to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force from Dawn Clements regarding possible conflict of interest involving the City Attorney Office’s advice to the Task Force related to Dawn Clements’ complaint of November 16, 2000 and letter of April 19, 2001. (Ad Hoc Committee voted 2-0 that there is no jurisdiction over request in Dawn Clements’ letter of May 22, 2001.)

Task Force Chair requested of the Ad Hoc Committee to clarify what the Task Force needs to do in these matters and write for us what our expectations are and then get from the City Attorney agreement, etc.

Member Guillory stated what was decided at the Committee meeting was that we had already dealt with the issue because Counsel Woodward is here today and we have a letter from the City Attorney that talked about the fact that Counsel Woodward would sit for the Clements’ matters.

Member Harrison stated she felt this would occur again; if someone appears before us and perceives a conflict of interest, that we would replace our City Attorney. Member Planthold stated we were going to prepare some guidelines to prevent this in the future.

Public comment from Dawn Clements stating it is not a matter of jurisdiction, was also a moot point because other Counsel is here.

Public comment from James Quadra stating the Task Force did not have jurisdiction; outside Counsel has been appointed.

Public comment from Raymond Willis stating determination under the Sunshine Ordinance is independent and has no connection with adverse employment.

Motion adopted accepting Committee recommendation of no jurisdiction.

(Ayes: Ray, Bernstein, Kowalczuk, Planthold, Guillory, Hogan) (Noes: Brugmann, Harrison, Williams) (Absent: Courtney)

Task Force Chair Bernstein left the meeting at this time. Meeting chaired at this time by Vice Chair Planthold.

9. Public hearing, Dawn Clements’ letter of May 22, 2001 related to Deputy City Attorney assigned to advise the Task Force on the Dawn Clements’ complaint of November 16, 2000 and letter of April 19, 2001

Hearing on this matter did not proceed as the Task Force accepted the recommendation of the Complaint Committee of no jurisdiction.

10. Public hearing, Dawn Clements and Harry Jamerson complaints of November 16, 2000 and November 30, 2000, relating to appointments to the Minority/Women Business Advisory Committee of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission

Dawn Clements addressed the Task Force requesting the Task Force refer to the document she distributed this evening titled "Outline to Presentation" addressing Ms. Barnes memorandum dated May 8, 2001, stating it did not provide a specific legislative history and had inconsistencies.

Harry Jamerson addressed the Task Force expressing concern of Chairperson Saliba-Malouf and appointment process and not for minority business; concerned with his dismissal from the board.

Member Harrison asked if his replacement was for convenience. Mr. Jamerson stated yes.

Member Brugmann asked if Mr. Jamerson was called before the Grand Jury or interviewed by the Grand Jury on any of this. Mr. Jamerson stated no. Member Brugmann asked if Mr. Jamerson felt he was penalized for his position. Mr. Jamerson stated yes.

Catharine Barnes, representing the Human Rights Commission, addressed the Task Force outlined the proposed findings for the Clements and Jamerson complaints; Ms. Saliba-Malouf’s appointment of new committee members did not violate the Brown Act or Sunshine Ordinance.

Member Harrison had questions of 12 D and 12 A and questions of appointment of Chair at the time Ms. Clements and Mr. Jamerson were appointed; concerned with the appointment process. Catharine Barnes stated 12 A is dormant and has been since the early 60’s; 12 D is active and continues to meet monthly; Ms. Clements and Mr. Jamerson continued on the with their appointments after their expired terms until their replacements were appointed, which is customary.

Harry Jamerson reiterated his concern of the appointment process; minutes were not kept.

Dawn Clements referred to minutes of April 18, 1995 stating selection was in a public forum; is to be an open meeting; process changed in 1996 and no longer was it a part of a public meeting process; 12 A is a legitimate cross with 12 D.

Member Williams stated there is a disparity in the African-American race; need to look into this; need to look at this agency and area; Mr. Jamerson well respected throughout the City.

Member Harrison expressed concern with Exhibit D, meeting notes of April 18, 1995-why reference to a task force to review the applications and then pass on to the chairperson; why was this done; disturbed about this; missing information.

Member Planthold stated that while in 1995 the process was one way, a declaration submitted makes it seem possible that there was a rule process change between 1995 and 2000.

Counsel Woodward stated originally the Commission as a whole was to appoint the Commission; at some point there was a change; at that point the chair was to appoint the members; June 2000 change was only a change in the order of the language; not a change in June 2000 as to how to appoint; still the chair to appoint.

Member Harrison requested a decision not be made until the next meeting.

Vice-Chair Planthold requested the Task Force members send questions to the Administrator to compile for the Chair for the next meeting. Member Hogan stated he felt it was straying near a seriatim meeting.

Member Brugmann suggested the question be put in open forum tonight

Member Harrison stated her concern: two different time spans, one giving the chairperson full autonomy to do what they chooses to select persons; another document three years later that shows there was an actual task force put in place with a three member panel; there is another document somewhere that states why this task force was put together for that particular item; somewhere along the line the rules changed after 1992; find those documents for me.

Member Brugmann referred to memo of December 13,2000 whereby the Deputy City Attorney stated there were three types of advisory committees to advise the HRC; at the advice of the Chair I moved that we put the question to the Attorney General; unanimously approved by the Task Force; at the suggestion of the City Attorney I suggested it be sent to the Board of Supervisors to send to the Attorney General; was returned; was not sent to the Attorney General properly; we have never got the answers that the Deputy City Attorney asked. What are our options to get an outside opinion as to which of those committees is the proper committee-should it go the District Attorney, to the Attorney General, an outside attorney-who should we get to make that determination.

Member Hogan stated his question had more to do with this task force that was called or set up by the chair to make recommendations-those recommendations could or might not be followed by the chair-were Mr. Jamerson and Ms. Clements appointed to this body via a task force, was their application considered by a task force and then subsequently changed after that; my second question is if those procedures were changed, did the chair have the authority to do that or did the commission have the authority to do that-while we may not like the fact that the procedure was changed, that is not in our purview to comment upon; and as much as we may feel for these two complainants as to the way they were treated, does that rise to the level of a sunshine complaint, is there a specific section of the sunshine ordinance that has been violated?

Member Guillory requested Counsel to summarize what she considers to be the specific sunshine ordinance violation.

Member Kowalczuk asked what was the name of the first person that was appointed by a singular person as appointed by a full committee-do you have a name of that person?