File No. 16099

File No. ....;,..;;16099______Item No. ------11 SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST

=S=u=ns=h=i.:..:.ne.:.....;:0::..:.r=d=in=a=n=c=e...::.T=as=k~Fo=r:....=c=e ______Date: February 1, 2017

~ Petition/Complaint Page: 3!:5 B Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney · Page:L ~ Complainant's Supporting Documents Page: ]63 [}1 Respondent's Response Page:'Jtr D Correspondence Page:_ D Order of Determination Page:_ D Minutes Page:_ D Committee Recommendation/Referral Page:_ D Administrator's Report Page:_ D No Attachments

OTHER D D D D D D D D D D. D D

Completed by:_--=-V_,_.Y_,_o=-=u;;..:.;n=g ______Date 01/27/17

*An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file.

P353 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary

File No. 16099

Michael Petrelis V. Ethics Commission

Date filed with SOTF: 10/18/16

Contacts information (Complainant information listed first): mpetrelis@aol .com (Complainant) Pelham, LeeAnn (ETH) Blome, Jessica (ETH) [email protected] (Respondent)

File No. 16099: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against the San Francisco Ethics Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.7 (a) and 67.15, by failing to post an agenda containing a meaningful description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting and failing to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interest to the public (October 16, 2016, meeting).

Administrative Summary if applicable:

Please provide a copy of the minutes for the October 16, 2016 meeting.

P354 Young, Victor

From: ·[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:09 AM To: -SOTF, (BOS) Subject: New complaint against the Ethics Commission

Dear Victor Young,

I wish to lodge another complaint against the SF Ethics Commission for the following reasons.

On Monday, October 16, the chair, one Paul Renne, without proper advance notice, amended the meeting's agenda. He made the commission's new unconstitutional meeting decorum guidelines, which were not on the agenda, item one and proceeded to read into the minutes the full text of the guidelines.

He then blended public comment about this unscheduled item with general public comment.

It is my contention that the major issue of First Amendment proteCtions and signage at this commission's meetings should have been agendized and public comment just on the guidelines, separate from general public comment, should have been the order of the day.

I ask that you process this complaint accordingly. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by the close of business today.

Regards, MPetrelis

* * * * Vote Petrelis tor BART Board's District 9 seat MPetrelis.Blogspot.com Facebook.com/PetrelisFiles Twitter.com/MichaelPetrelis

pg55 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

DENNIS J. HERRERA NICHOLAS COLLA City Attorney Deputy City Attorney

Direct Dial: (415) 554-3819 Email: [email protected]

MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force FROM: Nicholas Colla Deputy City Attorney DATE: January 6, 2017 RE: Complaint No. 16099 - Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission

COMPLAINT Complainant Michael Petrelis ("Complainant") alleges that LeeAnn Pelham ("Ms. · Pelham") and Jessica Blome ("Ms. Blome") of the San Francisco Ethics Commission ("the Commission") violated provisions of Administrative Code Section 67 ("the Sunshine Ordinance")·and Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("the Brown Act") by allegedly failing to agendize an item discussed at the October 17, 2016 Commission meeting and failing to allow public comment on the unagendized item. COMPLAINANT FILES TIDS COMPLAINT On October 18, 2016, Complainant filed a complaint with the Task Force regarding the Commission's alleged failure to agendize an item discussed at the October 17, 2016 Commission meeting and failing to allow public comment on the unagendized item. JURISDICTION The Commission is a City policy body. The Task Force therefore generally has jurisdiction to hear a complaint of a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance against the Commission. The Commission has not contested jurisdiction. APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTION(S) Section 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code: • Secti?n 67. 7 governs the agenda requirements for public meetings. • Section 67.9 governs the documents related to agendas for public meetings. • Section 67 .15 governs public comment. Section 54950 et. seq. of the California Government Code: • Section 54954.2 governs agenda requirements for legislative body meetings. APPLICABLE CASE LAW • none

Fox PLAZA • 1390 MARKET STREET, 6TH FLOOR • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 • FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644

n:\codenf\as2014\960024 l \01161287.doc P356 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 6, 2017 PAGE: 2 RE: Complaint No. 16099-Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission BACKGROUND On October 18, 2016, Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force in which he alleged in part as follows: On Monday, October 16, the chair, one Paul Renne, without proper advance notice, amended the meeting's agenda. He made the commission's new unconstitutional meeting decorum guidelines, which were not on the agenda, item one and proceeded to read into the minutes the full text of the guidelines. He then blended public comment about this unscheduled item with general public comment. · It is my contention that the major issue of First Amendment protections and signage at this commission's meetings should have been agendized and public comment just on the guidelines, separate from general public comment, should have been the order of the day. On October 31, 2016, in response to the filing ofthis complaint, Ms. Blome, Deputy Director of the Commission, sent a letter to the Task Force addressing the allegations. Ms. Blome's letter contends that the subject matter at issue, the meeting decorum guidelines, were always included at the top of Commission agendas. As such, Ms. Blome contends that the Commission began the meeting by simply noting a change to the policy terms included in the agenda template rather than addressing an unagenized item as Complainant contends. Regarding Complainant's allegation that this was an unagendized item, Ms. Blome' s letter states as follows: Sunshine Ordinance section 67. 7 requires a policy body to post an agenda containing a "meaningful description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting." Agendas must specify for each item of business the proposed action or a statement that the item is for discussion only. Id. Notwithstanding the Sunshine Ordinance's agenda itemization requirements, the Brown Actl provides that "a member of a legislative body may ... make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities ... "even ifthe announcement was not included on the meeting agenda. California Government Code § 54954.2(2). When Chair Renne read the new agenda template language regarding meeting decorum aloud, he was simply announcing the existence of new language on the standardized agenda, and he treated it as such. The Commission did not announce the new notification for discussion or decision-making purposes. As evidenced by SFGov.TV's recording, Chair Remie merely informed the public that he had asked Staff to prepare the notification and then read the notification aloud for the public's benefit. The Commission took no further action and attempted to proceed with its regular business. When Mr. Petrelis demanded an opportunity for public

n:\codent\as2014\960024 l \01161287.doc P357 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 6, 2017 PAGE: 3 RE: Complaint No. 16099 -Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission

comment, Chair Renne explained that he was free to provide public comment on any matter within the subject matter expertise of the Commission during the general public comment period, and Mr. Petrelis did so. Chair Renne's announcement of the existence of the meeting decorum notification was not an item of business that the Commission intended to discuss or for which action would be taken, so the Commission did not violation section 67. 7 by not including it as an item for public comment on the agenda. Regarding Complainant's contention that separate public comment should have been taken to address the alleged unagendized item, Ms. Blame's letter states as follows: Section 67.15 of the Sunshine Ordinance requires policy bodies to "provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interest to the public that are within the policy body's subject matter jurisdiction, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda ...." The Sunshine Ordinance does not define "action taken," but the Brown Act defines "action taken" as "a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance." California Government Code section 54952.6. On October 17, the Commission gave the public two opportunities to directly address the Commission on items of interest to the public within the policy body's subject matter jurisdiction: at the beginning of the meeting with "Agenda Item 2, Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda" and at the end of the meeting with "Agenda Item 9, Additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to Ethics Commission Bylaws Article VII Section 2." Mr. Petrelis took advantage of the first general public comment period to express his disagreement with the Commission's meeting decorum notification. In addition, on October 17, Commission did not take action-that is make any decisions or take any votes-on any items that did not appear on the agenda. Accordingly, the Commission did not violate section 67.15 QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST IN DETERMINING FACTS

• Did the Commission give any thought to the idea of making the policy changes an agendized item prior to commencing the meeting at issue?

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241 \01161287.doc P358 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 6, 2017 PAGE: 4 RE: Complaint No. 16099-Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission

LEGAL ISSUES/LEGAL DETERMINATIONS

• Should the changes in "Meeting Decorum Policy" have been a formal agenda item under Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.7(b) and Brown Act Section 54954.2? • If so, did the Commission "take action" on the unagendized item according to Brown Act Section 54952.6? • If so, did the Commission violate Sunshine Ordinance Section 67. 7 ( d) by taking action on an unagendized item? • If so, did the Commission violate Sunshine Ordinance Section 67 .15 by failing to take public comment on the subject matter at issue?

CONCLUSION

THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE FOLLOWING FACTS TO BE TRUE:

THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS TO BE TRUE OR NOT TRUE.

* * *

P359 n:\codenf\as2014\960024 l \01161287.doc CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 6, 2017 PAGE: 5 RE: Complaint No. 16099-Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission

CHAPTER 67, SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (SUNSHINE ORDINANCE)

SEC. 67.7. AGENDA REQUIREMENTS; REGULAR MEETINGS. (a) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, a policy body shall post an agenda containing a meaningful description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. Agendas shall specify for each item ofbusiness the proposed action or a statement the item is for discussion only. In addition, a policy body shall post a current agenda on its Internet site at least 72 hours before a regular meeting. (b) A description is meaningful if it is sufficiently clear and specific to alert a person of average intelligence and education whose interests are affected by the item that he or she may have reason to attend the meeting or seek more i11formation on the item. The description should be brief, concise and written in plain, easily understood English. It shall refer to any explanatory documents that have been provided to the policy body in connection with an agenda item, such as correspondence or reports, and such documents shall be posted adjacent to the agenda or, if such documents are ofmore than one page in length, made available for public inspection and copying at a location indicated on the agenda during normal office hours. ( c) The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. (d) No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a policy body may respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights, to the extent of asking a question for clarification, providing a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, or requesting staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning the matter raised by such testimony. (e) Notwithstanding Subdivision (d), the policy body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the following conditions: (1) Upon a determination by a majority vote of the body that an accident, natural disaster or work force disruption poses a threat to public health and safety. (2) Upon a good faith, reasonable determination by a two-thirds vote of the body, or, ifless than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that (A) the need to take immediate action on the item is so imperative as to threaten serious injury to the public interest if action were deferred to a subsequent special or regular meeting, or relates to a purely commendatory action, and (B) that the need for such action came to the attention of the body subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a). (3) The item was on an agenda posted pursuant to subdivision (a) for a prior meeting of the body occurring not more than five calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item, and at the prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken. (f) Each board and commission enumerated in the Charter shall ensure that agendas for regular and special meetings are made available to speech and hearing impaired persons through telecommunications devices for the deaf, telecommunications relay services or equivalent systems, and, upon request, to sight impaired persons through Braille or enlarged type. (g) Each policy body shall ensure that notices and agendas for regular and special meetings shall include the following notice:

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241 \01161287.doc P360 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 6, 2017 PAGE: 6 RE: Complaint No. 16099 -Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code)

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review.

FOR MORE -INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE.

(h) Each agenda of a policy body covered by this Sunshine Ordinance shall include the address, area code and phone number, fax number, e-mail address, and a contact person's name for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Information on how to obtain a :free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance shall be included on each agenda.

SEC. 67.15. PUBLIC TESTIMONY. (a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members ofthe public to directly address a policy body on items of interest to the public that are within policy body's subject matter jurisdiction, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by Section 67. 7(e) ofthis article. However, in the case of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the Board on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the Board, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee's consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the Board. (b) Every agenda for special meetings at which action is proposed to be taken on an item shall provide an opportunity for each member of the public to directly address the body concerning that item prior to action thereupon. (c) A policy body may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivisions (a) and (b) are carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker. Each policy body shall adopt a rule providing that each person wishing to speak on an item before the body at a regular or special meeting shall be permitted to be heard once for up to three minutes. Time limits shall be applied uniformly to members of the public wishing to testify. (d) A policy body shall not abridge or prohibit public criticism of the policy, procedures, programs or services of the City, or of any other aspect of its proposals or activities, or of the acts or omissions of the body, on the basis that the performance of one or more public employees

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241\01161287 .doc P361 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 6, 2017 PAGE: 7 RE: Complaint No. 16099-Petrelis v. LeeAnn Pelham and Jessica Blome of the San Francisco Ethics Commission

is implicated, or on any basis other than reasonable time constraints adopted in regulations pursuant to Subdivision (c) of this Section. ( e) To facilitate public input, any agenda changes or continuances shall be announced by the presiding officer of a policy body at the beginning of a meeting, or as soon thereafter as the change or continuance becomes known to such presiding officer.

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950 ET SEQ.

SEC. 54952.6. As used in this chapter, "action taken" means a collective decision made by a majority ofthe ·members ofa legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members ofa legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance.

SEC. 54954.2 (a) (1) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body ofthe local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a briefgeneral description ofeach item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. A briefgeneral description ofan item generally need not exceed 20 words. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and on the local agency's Internet Web site, ifthe local agency has one. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. The agenda shall include information regarding how, to whom, and when a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be made by a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting. (2) No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241\01161287 .doc P362 Young, Victor

From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 1 :04 PM To: SOTF, (BOS) Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: Re: SOTF - Mediation Response Received - No. 16099

Hello Victor,

I have received the docs and wish to proceed with my complaint before the full SOTF or an appropriate committee.

*** Vote Petrelis tor BART Board now til Nov Bth MPetrelis.Blogspot.com Facebook.com/PetrelisFiles Twitter.com/MichaelPetrelis

-----Original Message----- From: SOTF, (BOS) To: mpetrelis Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) (BOS) Sent: Wed, Nov 2, 2016 11:12 am , Subject: SOTF - Mediation Response Received - No. 16099

Dear Mr. Petrelis:

The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force is in receipt of a response regarding your abov'e mentioned complaint case;

The attached document(s) are the Respondent's response/records you requested. Notice of Hearing will be provided up scheduling ofthe complaint for hearing.

If you have any questions please contact me.

Thank You.

Victor Young Administrator Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr: Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415--554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

•()• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998. PS63 ETHICS COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

PAULA. RENNE October 31, 2016 CHAIRPERSON

PETER KEANE Victor Young VICE-CHAIRPERSON Administrator

BEVERLY HAYON Sunshine Ordinance Task Force COMMISSIONER [email protected] By email only DAINA CHIU COMMISSIONER RE: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. 16099

QUENTIN l. KOPP Michael Petre/is v. LeeAnn Pelham, et al. COMMISSIONER Dear Mr. Young: LEEANN PELHAM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I am the Ethics Commission's Deputy Director, Enforcement & Legal Affairs. Today, I write on behalf of the Ethics Commission and Executive Director LeeAnn Pelham in response to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. 16099 in which Michael Petrelis alleges that the Ethics Commission violated Sunshine Ordinance section 67.7(a) and 67.15. For the reasons set forth below, the Commission and Director Pelham deny Mr. Petrelis's allegations.

Relevant Facts

All Ethics Commission meetings are televised on SFGov.TV per section 3.301 of the San Francisco Campaign & Government Conduct Code. During its September 26, 2016, Commission meeting, Mr. Petrelis brought a hand-held election sign mounted on a stick for use during his and other individual's public comment periods. Mr. Petrelis positioned his sign so it was visible by audience members on SFGov.TV, which the Commission deemed disruptive. Commission Chair Paul Renne asked Mr. Petrelis repeatedly to put his sign away, and Mr. Petrelis eventually agreed to do so. Chair Renne also asked the City Attorney's Office to prepare a memorandum addressing the Commission's authority to prohibit the use of hand-held signs during its meetings. The City Attorney's Office promised to develop the requested memorandum as soon as possible.

In the days following the September 26, 2016, meeting, Mr. Petrelis lodged several public records requests with the Board of Supervisors and Sherriff's Office seeking clarification regarding the City's policy for the use of signs in City Hall meeting rooms. Mr. Petrelis copied the Ethics Commission on his requests, so the Commission also obtained copies of the following existing policies: (1) Board of Supervisors Rule of Order 1.3.1-a copy of Rule 1.3.1 is attached to this letter as Exhibit A; (2) San Francisco City Hall Hules-the City Hall Rules are attached to this letter as Exhibit B; (3) Sherriff's Department Policy for Commission & Board Meeting Security-the Sherriff's Department Policy for Commission & Board Meeting Security is attached to this letter as Exhibit C; (4) Sherriff s Department Policy for Protestors in City

25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220 •San Francisco, CA 94102-6053• Phone (415) 252-3100• Fax (415) 252-3112 E-Mail Address: [email protected] Web site: http://www.sfethics.org P364 Hall-the Sherriff s Department Policy for Protestors in City Hall is attached to this letter as Exhibit D.

In preparation for the Commission's October meeting, Chair Renne and Staff discussed including new language for the Commission's agenda template that would provide public notice about applicable decorum standards. Chair Renne asked Staff to include language beginning with the October agenda template. Because the Commission's agenda template already includes several notifications and guidelines for the public (such as when meeting materials will become available, a prohibition on the use of electronic devices, procedures for obtaining disability or language access, and a request to refrain from wearing chemical-based products to meetings), Staff placed the new notification under a new "Meeting Decorum" header toward the beginning of the Commission's standard agenda language.

In developing the agenda template language, Staff considered the four existing City policies identified above, as well as the Commission's own existing Bylaws, which state in part: "The Ethics Commission encourages and promotes integrity in government by education and example and is committed to treating all staff, members of the public, and colleagues with courtesy, respect, objectivity, and fairness." Ethics Commission By-Laws Article XI Sec. 1. Staff included the new "Meeting Decorum" paragraph as part of the standard agenda language for the Commission's October 17 meeting. A copy of the October 17 agenda is attached as Exhibit E. The "Meeting Decorum" paragraph also appears in its entirety below:

Meeting Decorum The Ethics Commission encourages and promotes integrity in government by education and example and is committed to treating all staff, members of the public, and colleagues with courtesy, respect, objectivity, and fairness. Ethics Commission By-Laws Article XI Sec. 1. Members of the public who attend commission meetings are also expected to behave responsibly and respectfully. Persons who engage in name-calling, shouting, interruptions, or other distracting behavior may be asked to leave. The following behaviors or activities are discouraged inside the hearing room: applause or vocal expression of support or opposition; eating or drinking; profanity; and physical aggression. In accord with the Board of Supervisors' Rules of Order 1.3.1, signs, regardless of content or message, are strictly prohibited. This prohibition does not apply to clothing, which includes signage pinned to clothing, messages displayed on clothing, pins, hats, or buttons. If the Chair is unable to obtain voluntary compliance, he may seek assistance from the Sherriff's Deputy on call. This provision supplements rules and policies adopted by City Hall, the Sherriff's Office, or the Board of Supervisors related to decorum, prohibited conduct or activities, noise, etc. and is not meant to be exhaustive.

In calling the Commission's October 17, 2016 meeting to order, Chair Renne took a moment to read aloud the new agenda template language related to Meeting Decorum. The Chair did not otherwise comment on the language but rather simply noted its existence, read it to the public, and stated that it would appear on all future meeting notices. Chair Renne then called for any public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the Commission agenda.

While another member of the public rose and prepared to speak at the podium, Mr. Petrelis rose from the audience and immediately requested public comment on the Commission's agenda template language. Chair Renne responded that he was simply reading the language and was now 2

P365 calling for public comment. Chair Renne explained that if any member of the public wished to comment on the new notification this public comment period was the opportunity to do so.

Response

1. The Commission did not violate section 67.7 because the agenda template language is not an "item of business" that was to be transacted or discussed at the October 17, 2016, meeting.

Sunshine Ordinance section 67.7 requires a policy body to post an agenda containing a "meaningful description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting." Agendas must specify for each item of business the proposed action or a statement that the item is for discussion only. Id. Notwithstanding the Sunshine Ordinance's agenda itemization requirements, the Brown Act1 provides that "a member of a legislative body may ... make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities ... " even if the announcement was not included on the meeting agenda. California Government Code§ 54954.2(2}.

When Chair Renne read the new agenda template language regarding meeting decorum aloud, he was simply announcing the existence of new language on the standardized agenda, and he treated it as such. The Commission did not announce the new notification for discussion or decision-making purposes. As evidenced by SFGov.TV's recording, Chair Renne merely informed the public that he had asked Staff to prepare the notification and then read the notification aloud for the public's benefit. The Commission took no further action and attempted to proceed with its regular business. When Mr. Petrelis demanded an opportunity for public comment, Chair Renne explained that he was free to provide public comment on any matter within the subject matter expertise of the Commission during the general public comment period, and Mr. Petrelis did so. Chair Renne's announcement of the existence of the meeting decorum notification was not an item of business that the Commission intended to discuss or for which action would be taken, so the Commission did not violation section 67.7 by not including it as an item for public comment on the agenda.

2. The Commission did not violate section 67.15 because the Commission allowed for two general public comment periods.

Section 67 .15 of the Sunshine Ordinance requires policy bodies to "provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interest to the public that are within the policy body's subject matter jurisdiction, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda ...."The Sunshine Ordinance does not define "action taken," but the Brown Act defines "action taken" as "a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance." California Government Code section 54952.6.

1 The Sunshine Ordinance incorporates the Brown Act at section 67.5.

P366 On October 17, the Commission gave the public two opportunities to directly address the· Commission on items of interest to the public within the policy body's subject matter jurisdiction: at the beginning of the meeting with "Agenda Item 2, Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda" and at the end of the meeting with "Agenda Item 9, Additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to Ethics Commission Bylaws Article VII Section 2." Mr. Petrelis took advantage of the first general public comment period to express his disagreement with the Commission's meeting decorum notification.

In addition, on October 17, Commission did not take action-that is make any decisions or take any votes-on any items that did not appear on the agenda. Accordingly, the Commission did not violate section 67.15.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr. Petrelis's complaint. In addition to Exhibits, I am attaching to this letter a copy of the draft minutes for the Commission's October 17 meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or (415) 252-3100.

Sincerely,

/s/ Jessica L. Blome Jessica L. Blome Deputy Director Enforcement & Legal Affairs

C: Michael Petrelis Members of the Ethics Commission

P367 Exhibit A

P368 . I I

Rules of O'rder

Board of Supervisors

City and County of San Francisco

Effective February 24, 2015

P369 1. Public Participation

1.1. Open Sessions. Every meeting of the Board, including all Board committee meetings, is open to the public. The agenda for each meeting of the Board is posted at the San Francisco Main Library, on the Board's kiosk in City Hall, and on the Board's website. A summary notice which includes the date, time, place, and where to find details of the matters to be considered is published in the San Francisco official newspaper. The Board shall not close any part of its open meeting to the public for "closed sessions," sometimes referred to as "executive session.'' except in strict observance of California's Ralph M. Brown Act (California's open meeting law) and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (SF Administrative Code 67).

1.2. Written Communications. The policy of the City and County of San Francisco and of the Board of Supervisors is to encourage public participation before legislative action is taken by the Board. Written communications concerning municipal issues addressed to the Board or Clerk of the Board and received by Monday by 12 noon will be listed on the agenda for the second following Board meeting. Communications relating to matters pending before Board or Board committee shall also be placed in the legislative file concerning the matter.

1.3. Public Testimony. The Board welcomes public testimony. Persons speaking before the Board or at committee shall confine their remarks to the question before the Board or committee. When the full Board considers legislation which has not been considered by a committee, public testimony on those items occurs during the public comment portion of the Board meeting. Each regular, special and off site meeting of the Board shall provide an opportunity at the appropriate place on the agenda for public comment. See also Rule 3.8, which discusses general public comment at Committee meetings and also Rule 4.22, which discusses general public comment at Board meetings.

1.3.1. Actions Prohibited during Board of Supervisors'· Meetings. • Applause or vocal expression of support or opposition • Standing in meetings • Eating or drinking in the public gallery • Use of electronic devices, unless they are ,in silent mode • Hand held signs in the Legislative Chamber or in the committee room (although small signs may be worn on clothing)

1.4. Speaker Cards. Speakers at meetings are requested, but not required, to identify themselves and fill out cards placed near the public microphone. The information is used to help prepare the minutes of the meeting.

1.5. Interpreters. The Board shall seek to provide interpreters at each of its regular meetings and all meetings of its committees for each language requested, where

2/24/2015 Pages

P370 Exhibit B

P371 Welcome TO SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL

In effort to provide a safe, secure, and pleasant environment at San Francisco City Hall and to protect this national historic landmark, compl111nce with the following policies is required: • Knives with blades more than 4 inches ACCESS - PUBLIC • Roller skates, skateboards, bicycles City Hall is open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.rn .. Monday through Friday. City Hall ls closed to the public on WEAPONS Saturdays and Sundays and on all national holidays including: · In accordance with California law, City Hall Security shall New Year's Day, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, ?resident's confiscate all illegal weapons and shall subject the bearer of such Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,,Labor Day, Columbus weapons to immediate arrest. Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day (including the Friday following Thanksgiving) and Christmas Day. DRUGS No illegal drugs are allowed in City Hall at any time. ACCESS- EMPLOYEE At all times when the bullding is closed to the public, employees CLOTHING of the City and County must show their valid City Hall Some type of clothing covering the upper and lower body is Identification In order to gain access Into the facility via the required. Shoes or other footwear is required. Grove Street entrance. SMOKING IDENTIFICATION Consistent with prohlbhlons In California law, no public City Hall reserves the right to require persons entering City Hall employee or member of the public may smoke any tobacco to provide identification as necessary. product inside City Hall, or in an outdoor area whhln 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or operable window of City Hall. IETAL DETECTORS Cal Gov't Code Section 7597. ersons entering the building must pass through metal detectors. II items a person may carry, Including, but not limited to bags, ALCOHOL purses. cell phones, strollers, laptop computers, seats, cushions No person may bring open, unscaled, re-sealed containers of and canes, wltt be thoroughly inspc9ted by City Hall Security. alcohol Jnside City Hall. Alcohol may not be consumed in public City Hall reserves the right to redirect· any Item, includlng large, areas of City Hall unless the alcohol is brought in and used in heavy, sealed or wrapped Items, to the City Hall Loading Dock accordance with the terms ofa written event or catering for additional inspection. agreement with the City.

PROHIBITED ITEMS ANIMALS The following items are prohlblted at City Hall. If City Hall Perfonnartce animals and pets are not allowed in City Hall. Security determlnes that any Item a person is seeking to bring Into People with disabilities may bring their service animals into an , City Hall ls on the list of prohibited items or could otherwise be areas where the public is pennltted. dangerous to persons or propet1y (a "hazardous item"), City Hall Security may deny access with such item., City Hall Security will NOISE not hold or store any prohibited or hazardous Item. We ask that you please refrain from making excessive noise in order not to disrupt City business. Prohibited Items: • Helium and helium-filled balloons TRASH AND RECYCLING • Pyrotechnics/fireworks We ask that you please help us keep City Hall clean. Use trash • Mylar or plastic confetti and recycl~ bins located throughout City Hall. • Decorations or props that will damage building surfaces. This Includes any type of paint, stickers, nail, fastener, glue VANDALISM or other adhesive In accordance with California Penal Code Section 594, no person • Space heaters may vandalize, mark, paint, damage, destroy or deface with • Smoke or fog generating devices graffiti or other inscribed material any real or personal property • Any act, device, object or decoration, which may cause hann owned by the Ci1y, including vehicles, signs, fixtures, walls, or damage to an individual or property as detennined by City floors, furnishings or other property. No person shall use any material, device, object or decoration, which may cause harm or Hall Security damage to an Individual or properly owned by the City. Anything that violates the Penal Code

P372 LM PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES SIGNS. TABLES AND EXHIBITS .rganiiatlons or persons desiring to use City Hall for film Signs mounted on sticks or poles are not pennltted in City Hall . production activities must enter Into a use agreement. The Banners are permltted only during special licensed events or Building Manager must. approve all such use agreements. services and subject to the terms of a written agreement with the City. Small paper or cardboard signs no larger than ( 11" x 17") · PRESS CONFERENCES AND RALLIES that can be carried by hand are allowed. Installation of tables or Press conferences and rallies are held on the front steps of City exhibits by private Individuals or groups Is not permitted In the Hall, in front of either the Goodlett Place (Polk Street) or Van hallway areas outside of meeting rooms or offices in City Hall. Ness Avenue entrances. Each press conference and rally must be scheduled with the Building Manager or Media Services Manager. An application fonn must be submitted to and approved by the Building Manager. The Interior of City Hall is not a publ!c forum and is not designated for use for press conferences or ral!les.

Please be advised that the City Hall BuJ/dlng Policies maybe subject to further revision by the Director ofAdministrative Services, In consul/at( on with the City Hall Building Manager, the Sheriff and the City Allorney.

P373 Exhibit C

P374 Policy#: FOD OS-02 FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION Date Issued: 07/02/2012 Last Revised: 08/01115

Related Policies:

Approv/J2-:i t)az:j!=-~~ POLICY AND PROCEDURE ~ters, Chief Deputy

Chapter: 05 City Hall.Security Unit Title: Commission & Board Meeting Security

POLICY: The San Francisco Sheriffs Department (SFSD) shall provide security to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and to Commission hearings/meeting in City Hall.

PURROSE: To provide procedures for emplOyees assigned to BOS/Commission. hearings/meetings. To provide safety for all occupants and to ensure the rules established by the BOS/Commission chair all adhered to by all occupants in attendance,

I. General:

A. City Public hearings/meetings may at times be noisy and volatile as tempers flare over issues. Sworn employees must always remain polite and professional to those on either side of an issue. Flexibility and the ability to communicate are key to diffusing tense or difficult situations.

B. Employees assigned to Board/Commission hearings/meetings shall wear Class "B" uniform with tie, and all appropriate safety equipment, including vest. 1. Radios should contain earpieces to avoid external noise in a hearing/meeting.

C. A hearing room may be the officially designated room of a Board of Commission, or the offices of a City Department. In the case of a meeting/demonstration in a City office, the Department Head or designee shall determine when the demonstration is disturbing the peace or impairing the normal flow of City government business and notify the SFSD employee(s) assigned to t~e hearing/meeting.

D. Signs exceeding 11" x 17" in size are not allowed in City Hall. Sound systems, tables, or other large items must have the approval of the Building Manager.

E. If a Board/Commission meeting goes beyond the building closing time, the building · shall remain open until that meeting has concluded. 1. The City Hall Security Unit Manager, Watch Commander or a supervisor shall be contacted if any issues arise at the entry security posts,

F. Individuals are admitted into hearing rooms on a first come, first serve basis and/or as seats become available. Room capacity is reached when all seats are filled. Standing

FODOS-02 Pagelof3

P375 . Commission & Board Meeting Security room is not allowed, unless otherwise directed by the President/Chair. 1. When more room is required the Building Management shall be contacted to identify an overflow room. 2. Individuals are seated in an overflow room on a first come, first serve basis and/or as seats b~come available.

G. Media must be seated during the Committee/Board proceedings, unless .otherwise directed by the President/Chair (video media may stand to operate their cameras). 1. "Press Only" section is reserved for members of the media who have valid "Press" identification. 2. Signs exceeding 11" x 17" in size are not allowed in hearing rooms.

II. Procedures:

A. The Board/Commission President/Chair facilitates a meeting. If the President/Chair orders an.individual(s) removed from a meeting, a sworn employee shall: 1. Ask the individual(s) to cooperate by voluntarily leaving the meeting room. 2. If the individual(s) refuse to leave, warn the individual that failure to comply · will result in arrest for Disturbing a Public Meeting, 3. . If an arrest must be made, sworn staff will use the minimum amount of force necessary to remove the individual from the hearing room and place the individual under arrest for 403 PC (Disturbing a Public Meeting) and any other applicable charge(s).

B. Prior to arresting an individual(s), the Commission/Board Chair/President may choose to: 1. Warn the individual(s) prior to ordenng the arrest. 2. Tum off the microphone. 3. Recess the meeting to allow tempers to cool. 4. Order the hearing room cleared (persons in line come back on a first come, first served basis). 5. Order that the individual(s). are arrested for 403 PC (Disturbing a Public Meeting).

· C. Upon arrest, the arrestee(s) shall be removed from the area and taken to a designated holding area. If the sworn employee believes the individual(s) will not return to the hearing room that day, the sworn employee may: 1. Issue a field citation. · 2. At the direction of a supervisor, release the individual(s) as a 11 detention only" pursuant to 849 (b) (1) PC. 3. After the arrest of an individual(s) from inside the hearing room, the sworn employee or a supervisor shall ask the.President/Chair or Department Head to sign an Arrest by Private Person Form and complete a statement fonn.

D. Sworn employees may take appropriate action without Commission/Board's permission when an individual(s)'s actions threaten safety or property. 1. An incident report shall be written and submitted to the District Attorney's Office for prosecution. The arrestee(s) shall be transported to County Jail# 1

FODOS-02 Page2 of3

P376 Commission & Board Meeting Security for booking or cited per existing policy.

E. Disturbances that occur inside City Hall, but not in a hearing room/city office, are the purview of the Building Manager. When the Building Manager decides that a demonstration is disturbing the public peace and/or impairing the nonnal flow of government business, the Watch Commander or his/her designee shall first:

1. Order the demoi;istrators to stop the disruptive behavior or be subject to arrest. 2. If the demonstrators do not comply, order the demonstrators to voluntarily disperse and leave the building. 3. If the demonstrators refuse to disperse, inform them, via the dispersal order that they are involved in an illegal assembly and are subject to arrest. 4. The dispersal order must be read at least twice, and in such a manner that all persons present would reasonably hear and understand it.

F, If the protestors do not comply, the sworn employee shall use minimum force necessary to effect an arrest and charge the protestors with one of the following or other appropriate charges: 1. 404 PC (Riot) . 2. 407 PC (Unlawful Assembly) 3. 409 PC (Refusal to Disperse when Ordered) 4. 415 PC (Fighting, Causing Loud Noise, or Using. Offensive Words in a Public Place) · 5. 148 PC (Resisting or Obstructing Peace Officer)

G. Upon the arrests of the protestors, the Building Manager/Department Head shall fill out a Private Person's Arrest Form and a statement form. The swom employee shall fill out an incident report and submit the package to the District Attorney's Office.

H. Upon arrest, the arrestee(s) shall be removed from the area and taken to a designated holding area. If the sworn employee believes the individual will not return to the City Hall that day, the sworn employee may: 1. Issue a field citation. 2. At the direction of a supervisor, release the individual(s) as a "detention only" pursuant to 849 (b) (1) PC. ·

ffi. Forms: Not Applicable

IV. References: Not Applicable ·

FOD 05-02 Page3 of3

P377 Exhibit D .

P378 FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION Date Issued: 07 /02/2012 Policy#: FOD 05-05 Last Revised: 05/21/15; 08/01/15 Related Policies: 05·02 Commission and Boord Mecwting Security

Appro~}, ;//Jz=tf:-'StlJ POLICY AND PROCEDURE Af~;s, Chief Deputy

Chapter: 05 City Hall Security Unit Title: Protestors in City Rall

POLICY: The San Francisco Sheriffs Department (SFSD) shall ensure that visitors to City Hall are able to safely exercise their Constitutional Rights.

PURPOSE: To provide procedures to City Hall Security Unit (CHSU) staff regarding protesters inside of City Hall.

I. General:

A. The First Amendment Right of Freedom of Expression will be facilitated so long as it does not compromise the protection of life, property and the flow of City government inside and around City Hall. .

Il. Procedures:

A. CHSU staff shall immediately notify the CHSU Watch Commander or designee of protestors inside and around City Hall. 1. The CHS.U Watch Commander or designee shall immediately notify the Building Manager. B. Protest activity shall be monitored and recorded via the security camera surveillance system.

C. The following is prohibited inside City Hall:

1. Chanting, yelling,. and whistle blowing 2. Sound amplification equipment without a permit 3. Signs exceeding 11" x 17" in size 4. Weapons or potential weapons 5. Blocking hallways, aisles and corridors 6. Throwing food and/or objects 7, Physical violence of any type 8. Vandalism 9. Food service without a permit 10. Smoking per California Government Code Section 7597 11. Furniture or heavy equipment without authorization from building management.

FOD 05·05 Page 1 of2

P379 Protestors in City Hall

D. CHSU sworn staff shall attempt to communicate with the protest leader (within City Hall) to explain and advise that the demonstration activity is prohibited. Sworn staff shall request the individuals to cease the prohibited activity. Ifthe individuals refuse to cease the prohibited activity, sworn staff shall: 1. Notify the CHSU Watch Commander or designee and request direction.

E. The CHSU Watch Commander or designee shall advise CHSU staff on what direction to talce.

III. Forms: Not Applicable

IV. References: Not Applicable

FOD 05-0S Page 2 of2 Exhibit E

P381 25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94102 Ethics Commission Telephone 252-3100 Fax 252-3112

SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2016, 1:30 P.M. and AGENDA Room 416, City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco

1. Call to order and roll call. 2. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. 3. Discussion and possible action on draft minutes for the Commission's September 26, 2016 regular meeting. Attachment: September 26, 2016 draft minutes. 4. Discussion of Education and Compliance Program Update Attachment: Education and Compliance report dated October 12, 2016 and attachment 5. Discussion of Enforcement Program Report Attachments: Enforcement & Legal Affairs Report dated October 13, 2016 and attachments 6. Discussion of Executive Director's Report. An update of various programmatic and operational highlights of Ethics Commission staff activities since the Commission's previous monthly meeting. The written report, which is available at the Commission office and on its website, covers a range of topics such the Commission's policy and legislative work, budget, audit program, and future staff projects. Any of these subjects may potentially be part of the Director's presentation or discussed by the Commission. Attachments: Executive Director's Report dated October 12, 2016 and attachments. 7. Discussion and possible action regarding proposed settlement for the Ethics Commission's consideration in Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor 2010, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (S.F. Superior Court Case No. 16-551745) for a $25,000 payment by Supervisor Farrell and mutual release of legal claims. Possible Closed Session. a. Public comment on all matters pertaining to Agenda Item 7, including whether to meet in closed session. b. Vote on whether to assert attorney-client privilege and meet in closed session under Brown Act section 54956.9 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.lO(d) to discuss pending litigation. (Action.) c. Conference with Legal Counsel: Pending litigation. (Discussion and possible action.) Number of possible cases: 1 d. If closed session Is held, reconvene in open session. e. Discussion and vote pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken or discussions held in closed session regarding pending litigation. (Discussion and possible action.) Motion: The Ethics Commission moves (not) to disclose its closed session deliberations re: pending litigation. Attachments: Court filings in the above-named matter. 8. Discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. 9. Additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to Ethics Commission Bylaws Article VII Section 2.

P~82 SF Ethics Commission Agenda· October 17, 2016

10. Adjournment.

There will be an opportunity for public comment on each agenda item.

Materials Available Materials contained in the Commission packets for meetings are available for inspection and copying during regular office hours at the Ethics Commission, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2201 at least 72 hours prior to meetings. Any materials distributed to members of the Ethics Commission within 72 hours of the meeting or after the agenda packet has been delivered to the members are available for public inspection at the Ethics Commission, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220, San Francisco, during normal office hours.

Electronic Devices Prohibited The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. The Chair may order the removal of any person responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices.

Disability Access The Ethics Commission meeting will be held in Room 400, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA. The Commission meeting room is accessible to persons using wheelchairs and other assistive mobility devices. Members of the public should not interfere with accessibility by ensuring the public right of way is open at all times. Ramps are available at the Grove, Van Ness and McAllister entrances. The closest accessible BART station is the Civic Center Station at United Nations Plaza and Market Street. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: #42 Downtown Loop, and #71 Haight/Noriega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the Metro Stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For information about MUNI accessible services call (415) 923-6142. There is accessible curbside parking adjacent to City Hall on Grove Street and Van Ness Avenue and in the vicinity of the Veterans Building at 401 Van Ness Avenue adjacent to Davies Hall and the War Memorial Complex.

To request assistive listening devices, real time captioning, sign language interpreters, readers, large print agendas or other accommodations, please contact the Ethics Commission at (415) 252-3100 or [email protected] at least 72 hours in advance before the meeting, except for Monday meetings, for which the deadline is 4:00 p.m. the previous Friday. Late requests will be honored, if possible.

Language Access Per the Language Access Ordinance (Chapter 91 of the San Francisco Administrative Code), Chinese, Spanish and or Filipino (Tagalog) interpreters will be available upon requests. Meeting Minutes may be 2 P383 SF Ethics Commission Agenda - October 17, 2016 translated, if requested, after they have been adopted by the Commission. Assistance in additional languages may be honored whenever possible. To request assistance with these services please contact at {415) 252-3100 or [email protected] at least 48 hours in advance of the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible.

Chemical-Based Products In order to assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical-based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals.

Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements Individuals who Influence or attempt to influence local policy or administrative action may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 2.100 - 2.160) to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please contact the Ethics Commission at 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94102; telephone (415) 252-3100, fax (415) 252-3112; and website: www.sfethics.org.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINA~CE {Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code): Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102-4689; phone: (415) 554-7724; fax: (415) 554-7854; email: [email protected]. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, at the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's website at http://www.sfgov.org

3 P384 Minutes of the Special Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission October 17, 2016 Room 416 - City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 (DRAFT}

1. Call to order and roll call.

. ,t-~~:~>- Cha i rpe rso n Renne called the meeting to order at 1:31 PM. Chairp:e/$gn Renne read an addition to the notices at the end of the Commission's agenda, regarding meeH6~~~~:~orum. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Renne, Chairpersefnf~~f;i::k~·!'lne, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Daina Chiu, Commissioner; and;<;l:ue~ti~ L. Ko~~t~o.mmissioner. STAFF PRESENT: LeeAnn Pelham, Executive Directql:{::~~l!i:;·a Blome, Dep~::}~~Jltector; Gayathri Thaikkendiyil, Senior Fellow; Catherine Argumedb~:;M~~stigator/Legal Analyst::::f.~t:>,., '<:~~~;~~~:~'\ _..:;:;:i:~:-, '\'.:.~~~~~~~i:>~. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY: Andrew.Shen, Deputy CiW~Attornef(DCA); Sara EisenJJ.erg, DCA. ,5&f~~;~~;:~;:; ~'.::~-~;:~~:::~~~~~~~~~:[;·/ .·,: .. ;~~:,;> OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Bush; Ray HarfzfMj~~!'l~I Petrelis; Cn@~s Marsteller; Dr. Derek Kerr; Starchild; Charles Bell; and other unidentified mer~W~tfi>'f!th'e public. ::;::;;.::>. 1 MATERIALS DISTRI BUTE~:Ctf0);;~ ' '\'~!c '\ilf{~')[i~bo,." ' ~{;~1} • September 26,,JQf.fi>Comn;iJ~·~ion meetif@~qraJt:@n'ltteS'f'.~§::::;.,_ • Education amf@\JJpliance"(~~o.rt, dated'0Wf¥f~f'12, 201i=W~Wd attachment; • Enforcement & &g~kAffairs «{port, dated.btfober 13, 2016, and attachments; ,·,--.:{:-~·:<1. :f''.·>.·I_. ·-;':<·.:-: • Exect1tiy.e.. Pirector's'R~R(lri:,:;C:f~~@.:9~tober 12'f:4Q16, and attachments; • ,,,.;_.-~~~~'.:-~~~·>~·'>:~;<..::-,.. ·.-~)>~~ •' .. ~ ~, > '-•'-"'' • L< > •' >' •' d •'." • C_9:µtt:.f!ling~::f;~t~t~d to M,ark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor 2010, et al. v. City and County of San .;-Francisco, et al. (S.F. Superior Court Case No. 16-551745);

• ''\f~~~~i::mment. '~i\jf~k ''''.f~\f~%;o, ''W 2. Public com'/11~~~ on matters apP.~_aring or:~ot appearing on the agenda . .. :~~f~~~F:~\·.>. ':~~~~;\ Larry Bush handed'a::lis:t.of organii~tTons and individuals that have endorsed Proposition T, including all members of the Boa~iP6isupervj~~f~

·:·::t:@~;~;~;ii~lJif 1 Ray Hartz stated that, accordiQ:ff.tb the Clerk of the Board's office, signs exceeding 11"x17" are prohibited and that small ,signs are permitted. He stated that interruptions of public comment are considered a breach of his First Amendment rights.

Michael Petrelis stated that the Commissioners infringed on his First Amendment rights during the last Commission meeting. He stated that there is no prohibition on signs, only those that are mounted.

P385 1 3. Discussion and possible action on draft minutes for the Commission's September 26, 2016 regular meeting.

Motion 161017-01 (Keane/Chiu): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission approve the Commission's September 26, 2016 meeting minutes, with suggested changes.

Public Comment: Charles Marsteller suggested a change at the bottom of page 4, regarding a comment he made.

Ray Hartz stat.ed that any member of the public may submit a written statement and that nothing prohibits him from using a curse word. -:>. ',::;;,'.~~;~~ ~.~~f:· ,.,,):~~:i:~-:~>·>' Michael Petrelis objected to the draft minutes, as they did nqt;r:etJ~~t his attempt to have three minutes of uninterrupted public comment during the last CommissJofi)W~~'tiWg, He stated the minutes did not reflect reality. .;, :.-:;:<. 4. Discussion of Education and Compliance Progrca)il}Update. . :l:!lecti6'.Mt'tommissione~~kk·arie and Kopp

::::i::::n:•ff on iB work. (~-;;;,~J~f~l\K~;~;:~~*i~~l\i;%,\e; 'i''

Larry Bush, from Friends 9g~l:ii.cs;;.stated that::p~ople wet~:J.l'tr;i,1,led withJh~ completeness of the report. ,.-:::(~~:1::11f!:::::::::::;:~:t;~~~:::::. ·o::!~i;{\.,. .,~~s:~itt;::i::~::@~}::,:::,.. ·-;;:;•·· Ray Hartz asked the pu:{p.9~e of the\~p9rt, as he· 1ta.~t5JSJ.ring the preyi,ous meeting.

Executive Director Lee;~:~t~~:fh~.m ~t~¥~~.;tl}pt the i:~lf!~}µpdate provided by staff last month was designed t~:h!'.ii{l.if;R~);ml~ und~f~f~)iW~~hf~~l~ttifinanc~:·~~ta and third party spending. She stated the re po rt ,~11~~hitOl\i~(i~~\jl~;~: X~@~\~~;:nglf.iiifi~J!J~l1'ilenda. 5. DiscussiOA,of Enforcemenff;fogram ·R~PC?rt. . ·.;:;~~~~~~~:~>. ',~i[~~f~~. '"·~~~:{~[~.\ . Deputy Directcfr::J~ssica Blome inff:q'duced the;item. She provided an update on the Kawa matter and stated that this ty~~;~qf.informati~Wfor the Enforcement program would be provided for every Commission meetingf:j;~h~ noted ~f[~s to improve and acknowledged that there are too many matters in preliminary review arii{~·!'!ndidf;rffinvestigation. She stated that staff would be undertaking an educational campaign so t'H~f:R'.Q,~iitand City employees and officials would be aware of what the Commission's jurisdiction is aififhow enforcement works.

Commissioner Kopp asked about investigations that have stopped because the District Attorney's Office asked staff to stop. He asked to talk about that issue during the next Commission meeting. He suggested the Commission consider placing a 90-day limit on any holds before continuing with an investigation. Vice-Chairperson Keane asked whether the Commission could move from having probable cause hearings in closed session to having them in open session. Commissioner Kopp agreed with the idea. Deputy Director Blome stated that staff would like to engage with the public and interested parties on ideas on how to change the enforcement process.

P386 2 Public Comment: Larry Bush stated that the Civil Grand Jury report from June 2014 noted many similar items. He suggested that staff and the Commission look at other similar agencies.

Ray Hartz stated that he has been coming to meetings for 8 years and is a member of Mensa. He complimented the report and was amazed at the comment that the Commission should give more deference to the Task Force.

Dr. Derek Kerr stated that it was not enough to talk about resources and investigations. He stated that whistleblowers represent a threat to the City family. He asked that ~Jaff address the implicit bias against whistleblowers and their fear for their own careers. .;/%:~b

Charles Marsteller stated that this is the most discussion on.th@.~~~~;~ement program that he has heard in the 19 years he has been following the Commission. H<{~W~ci ~'bcfotr:iew staff appointments and stated a concern about possible freezing of hiring du~;;!~).ud'get issue~W~}b.e next few weeks . .. :(:fnw::Y . ··,;::;:(I~~::;:::. Executive Director Pelham stated that two positi0!:it'W.ere being posted this WM~.and that the other positions would most likely start in early January. ·:;~;;~:\:, '\t:::::.

::~~:::::i:e::~::~:~: :::o::::dR:/~e~~09!h~'::!:!l:!1~:w, Gayathri ~::~~endiyil. Ms. ThaikkendiyiI stated that she is excited to b~~part'cif;:~tMf,and state:i:f~that she will be working with staff .,,/~,/•".,,_ '-'-·~·.·.'-,.··~'--~ '•'·>)" ,•. to gather, organize, and dis~eminate informatJ6.n on the~C:Qnunissiori's!:website and other sites for the public. Director PelhamAf~t~d~{K~t;:t,here we~~Wwo ope1f~6~ft!:9ns, whitW::are both exempt positions. ·Public Comment: '\)~!;;:. *le'\ ·~~i~,V •fii0~?· Charles Marsteller sought"d~'fi.ficatiod:fqrJhe open p9~!tions . .,,:<:::-:?.:);&:~:, .. _ ·~:~:~'.Wt,:~:~~~~~2~)~'.~Ii~i~ti:i~:,.,. ':ti$b Starchild .. ~l~t~cFtnat::a,::~9,py of a"lcift# proviaed~.tc;):*b~ C:Q:ijimission was incomplete. He stated that he wanted:ifbJ~'iinatter to He;::·qhJoday1 ~:;~lenda and'wW'.8ot told of procedure regarding getting things on •J,',•.-·,'··· '--~ ....~ •..-::.. '•,'·,',','/.-. >,•/ the agen·qa':}1.nd filing compfa!tit~. Diredq(.Pelham stated that simply filing a complaint with the Commissi~W~Re.s not place it·g~::a;publit~l~n,da. Starchild provided a full copy of his letter. ·c::~::W@~~< ·,::t1~fa. ·-:;~~:;:; Ray Hartz proposema:reset with th~;c;:ommission, after coming to its meetings for 8 and Yz years. He stated that the hiririg~:Bt.Ms. Blom~:W~movement in the right direction. He stated that he was still concerned that he file°d":fWoi.cornt?J~i}its and both were dismissed without a hearing. . ':~~;~i~~t@\l@~:;/ The Commission entered a breal< at 3:08 PM. The Commission returned from break at 3:24 PM.

7. Discussion and possible action regarding proposed settlement for the Ethics Commission's consideration in Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor 2010, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. {S.F. Superior Court Case No. 16-551745) for a $25,000 payment by Supervisor Farrell and mutual release of legal claims.

Chairperson Renne stated that there have been developments since the matter was last before the Commission. He stated that Supervisor Farrell filed a lawsuit and the City filed a countersuit. He stated that the parties have continued to see if the matter could be resolved outside of court. DCA Sara

3 P387 Eisenberg stated that the City Attorney's Office negotiated the best settlement on behalf of the City. She stated that the City Attorney's Office would provide additional guidance on legal issues in closed session.

Public Comment: Ray Hartz stated that this matter has dragged on for years and it has been frustrating for the public.

Larry Bush, for Friends of Ethics, stated that Supervisor Farrell has bragged in a newspaper article that he would not come before the Commission. He s

Dr. Derek Kerr stated that the Commission took a stand against big::~:b,"ney in political campaigns. He stated the previous Director kept the Commission in the dark ?.r:itj}£6~1 the Commission has performed courageously and honorably. He stated that the proposal r~Rf~~~hh ..an advance for campaign ethics. ' ~ '~;:t~J;::/ ·>~tk::,, The following written summary was provided by the speaker, Dr. Derek Kerr, the content of which is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission:

In this case, the Ethics Commission took !!t~a:,a9ainst tl@jmpunit:'''~i~bioney in political campaigns. You had many reas9ps to back doW:ff;~~%;9ur;::f~trry~r Executive ofre:6tqr. stayed inert and kept you in the dark durin~]:'.~:;4~Y:E?.ar FPPC inve~tfMfr6'h. The City AttorneyHbdged this case, fretting about the statute of limitiilt\~@{gxe,ssured by til'~f:§J.Jtton Law Firm and the City Attorney, Mr. St. Croix caved. You were se~Rih~t~::B:Q:<;igJ~.t increas~::~~fqre the Board's Budget and Finance Committee - chaired by Supervisor·~~r;~ell. A:f:i·~:~iY.J.f::,.Farrell reftj:~.E,ld to appear before you, calling it a "waste of time" .• T~~:~tQ\cs Commis~fqi:i perfcirff:!~~;gq,urageou:~1Y: .. and honorably. Small as it is, the $25,000 settl~:ffi'~ht:°iW~·po~al repregeccits an~ay~fie~Jo~Jhis Cbmmission and for campaign ethics. tj.~m:f::.:. ' '<::;~;~~~1t ":;:~~~~;\t~;:y:· '::%~~&~::;

Starchild, Libertarian PartijJ:>J:S.an FraH~tsco, agreed'W,i~h discussing this matter openly . ./. ;;;;;~(;::;:;:~:·..... ·. ;\:f 0;:&~: .. ;:::::M@:~~~:~:::;:::~.,,. >::l~~: ... Charles M

Commissioner a letter that Supervisor Farrell should recuse himself from Ko~~~~Wf~pJhat·, ';\r.>,•,·. .',~.f."'.~».·~,.~l~Wote voting on the budget for the;,c;:,d)fi@ssion . .. :~;~@~;y·· Motion 161017-02 (Keane/Renne): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission move into closed session.

The Commission entered closed session at 3:49 PM. All Commissioners, DCA Shen, DCA Eisenberg, Executive Director Pelham, Deputy Director Blome, and staff member Argumedo remained in the hearing room. DCA Eisenberg left the hearing room at 4:28 PM. The Commission returned into open session at 4:29 PM.

Motion 161017-03 (Keane/Chiu): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission disclose its closed session deliberations.

4 P388 Chairperson Renne announced that the Commission voted 3-2 in favor of approving the settlement agreement.

Chairperson Renne made a statement regarding why he supported the settlement. He stated that, after the matter was first sent to the Treasurer for collection, mediation was set up. He stated he sought two items: admission of responsibility for wrong-doing of the committee and a significant payment of a fine. He stated that the City became aware of the risk, after Supervisor Farrell filed the Anti-SLAPP motion, that if the City did not prevail, it would be responsible for substantial legal fees. He believes the $25,000 amount was a significant amount and sends a strong message. He stated that there were always procedural and substantive concerns with this case. He stated that settlement was in the Commission's best interest and in the best interest of the citizens of San Francisc&fl:> .. :A!SW~/ Vice-Chairperson Keane stated he would have voted for the.:$.:?'.S~OQQ.~~.ettlement. He stated that this is one of the most egregious things a modern politician can. c:f~:Jlfreg·~:rd'b,o campaign contributions and stated they were fraudulently obtained. He stated th.atfffi:e FPPC nev~·f:iHterviewed the two donors: Dede Wilsey and Tom Coates. He stated that the rnBc%~~er made a findlh~:that Supervisor Farrell was not involved in this commingling activity. He stat(cfMtwould vote for the ~~Wi·~ment except for the language in this recital. He stated that the former.'DW~,c;:tor was cle9rly incomp~~~l:hJn allowing the statute of limitations to run and that is the underlying:r~~spn he,ditlded to retir~;::::fie:stated that the City Attorney's Office bears no respon~fE/lHW in this. He -~¥~t~qJH~ffhe language in tfMrecital will be spun tomorrow. He stated that Supenff~~r/f.~'r.rell never had·:(6~";i:Jolitical will or integrity to come before the Commission address it. He stated th~t;~J'jj~:fyjsor Farrell h·~~%'.~lo.t to be ashamed of and the voters '<<·:.'~~·.. ··>>>~·'!·:)·.· .. X·>.:·;., .. should know that. He stated that, even if tli~.Com'[email protected]:l__ agrees th:~~;_be had nothing to do with it, he did. "';ifi~~t:g;,,. \[~~h, ,·:#Jl'.~lji~;,~ •. '"i\~,,. Commissioner Kopp st?"t~d that he 'a)~f6pted all o'f~tQ,~:i$t:atements rri'~·qe by Vice-Chairperson Keane. He stated that it is not his''M:iiclusion thitf-S·upervisor'F~frei'I did not authorize the actions of his former campaign consultant with~~@~J:?e_ct ta,,&s~."-Jle statelih~t this case is based upon a prior City employee's malpractice"Ji~:~~a~E!d, he w'd:&l~~RtB:~~-111\;i:'~'.9.~~pt the$:2~ 1 000 payment, but he would not accept the recitaljt;_ff7''''<>%t:~~~h 'if&~{\\. . ""i'.f~'i'\tfa; ajj•

Commiss'iQUE!X Hayon statedf~~:~dtizer'(::a:Oq voter of San Francisco and as the Commission's only non lawyer, sh~·:;::~~j::J_~cted the legal:gfoDions."sM~:§}_ated that the bottom line is that Supervisor Farrell took responsibility fo@oJiciting an illeg~tc:ontribu'tid'n and he is going to pay a fine. He stated that voters can feel satisfied wittN8at:. She stated~J6:at, in the future, the Commission will take such complaints and deal with them quickW~nd appro~!%'tely.

Commissioner Chiu ech·:~~tt~~'.i:~*~:ks from Commissioner Hayon and Chairperson Renne. She stated the case had procedural and legal issues and that Supervisor Farrell has accepted responsibilities of the actions of his agents. She stated that, for future violations, the Commission will act more expeditiously and effectively.

Chairperson Renne noted, in response to Vice-Chairperson Keane's statements, the specific language in the order referencing the FPPC's finding. He stated that all sworn documents filed by Supervisor Farrell have denied any knowledge and that the Commission has no evidence to counter his denial. He stated that there have been lots of accusations, but no evidence supporting them.

Public Comment:

5 P389 Larry Bush stated there had been no discussion on Helfund and suggested that the Commission require someone to appear before it.

Charles Marsteller stated that much is to be learned from this mistake. He stated that staff and the Commission need to ensure this does not happen again. He stated that elected officials should appear before the Commission.

8. Discussion and possible action on items for future meetings.

Vice-Chairperson Keane suggested a discussion regarding a Charter a,mendment so that probable cause hearings are no longer done in closed session. .~{i:;}::;. Public Comment· //(~·]f~(l~i~:/ Larry Bush stated that he was impressed with the calendarJ&f:)'.lf~~6:%h1g agenda items for 2017. He suggested that the Commission engaged in stronger oytf~.!?'2h to uni~W~:T?nd minority organizations. _:::;~:(i;~;:~~:;~>< .:);~~~/}~~~~:>. Starchild asked the Commission to place his lette{::6:ti:;~n agenda for a futun{%~:eting and stated that it should be heard before the election. Commission~HHayon noted that red and"'l~foe .. are national colors on the flag and that she respected Starchild's view. Cff~J(person, t:(~kr;ie stated th.at;[i~)1ad serious questions over whether the Commissiorr:h.~s jurisdiction°6~~r; ..th~:f:1ffiatter. ";;;;~~>·

9. Additional opportunity for public c~~.~~~¥~&km~tters ::~~~;ririg or not appearing on the agenda

::::.ant to Ethics com:i@iiii~;::ws Arii4f1~:··:1:•_·.:··:; :....•• :,·.:~.::s•.•:.·_::, ...;_:·····'·:·:.::::·.: .•:c···:·····:::··.·' ....':._·.· ...·:·=i ....:•...• :•.o.•=~ .•.·.::.. ~.::·.'..•.".~.'..i_•f .ffe~ .•.. :...•.....•. '.:···:~.·_:•_ ,.',.. .. :·.,.•. ·.:·:·····:·.~ ..·.~·,:·=··:·····.;.~t;¥,:t 10. Adjournmen~ !{•llft,A,. "'i\f~t ·~;~[ · · · Motion 161017-04 (Kopp/Ke~'i-:i~): 1V1.~ve.c;1, ..~econded;;:a,tid passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn ::::~fJE;~~~ltf~~t~::f~·~Jf ;i:~.;.::•~;p~~~zk~~t, 1 None. ., ;~'.j::~.1,:.._:,:~~'·:'···. . : ···<~r~::::

'·'.;:<:;~.f~)~~~i:•

6 P390 Young, Victor

From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 4:41 PM To: '[email protected]'; Pelham, LeeAnn (ETH); Blome, Jessica (ETH); Hennessy, Vicki (SHF); Nicco, Mark (SHF); Horne, Freya (SHF); Feitelberg, Brittany (CAT); Shaikh, Shaista (ETH); 'Andrea Guzman'; Argumedo, Catherine (ETH) Cc: Colla, Nicholas (CAT); Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Compliance and Amendments Committee: January 9, 2017, 4:00 p.m.

Good Afternoon:

Notice is hereby given that the Compliance and Amendments Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine ifthe Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force. The Complainant and Respondent may attend to provide clarification, evidence and related testimony. However, attendance by the Complainant and Respondent are not required at the January 9, 2017, Compliance and Amendments Committee meeting.

Date: January 9, 2017

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:00 p.m. (Special Order-5:00 p.m.)

Complaints:

SPECIAL ORDER -The hearings on File No. 16091 and 16099 will not begin earlier than 5:00 p.m.

File No. 16091: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against Director LeeAnn Pelham and Commissioners Paul Renne, Peter Keane and Quentin Koop (Ethics Commission), Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, and City Attorney Dennis Herrera for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.15 and 67.21, by not allowing an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interested to the public that are within the policy body's jurisdiction, abridging or prohibiting public criticism of the policy, procedures programs or services of the City and by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner (September 26, 2016, Ethics Commission meeting).

File No. 16099: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against the San Francisco Ethics Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.7 (a) and 67.15, by failing to post an agenda containing a meaningful desc~iption of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting and failing to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interest to the public (October 16, 2016, meeting).

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For additional document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing. For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, January 4, 2017. P391 The Task Force, upon receipt of the report and/or recommendation from the Compliance and Amendments Committee, shall schedule and conduct a hearing on the merits of the complaint. The Complaint and Respondent will be required to attend the Task Force meeting to review the merits of the complaint(s). The Task Force has tentatively scheduled a hearing on February 1, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. tb review the recommendations of the Committee for the above listed complaints. Notice of hearing will be provided once the hearing date has been confirmed.

Victor Voung Administrator Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

i/l(J• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board ofSupervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

pjgz Young, Victor

From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:29 PM To: Leung, Lydia (UCSF); Garcia, Barbara (DPH); Sarieh, Nancy (DPH); Perry, Andrew (CPC); Brask, Anne (CPC); lonin, Jonas (CPC); Silva, Christine (CPC); Rahaim, John (CPC); '[email protected]'; Christensen, Diana (ADM); ACC, (ADM); 'Library Users Association'; Reiskin, Ed (MTA); Boomer, Roberta (MTA); 'Celaya, Caroline'; Tabajonda, Will (MTA); Kennedy, Sean (DPH); '[email protected]'; Blome, Jessica (ETH); Pelham, LeeAnn (ETH) Cc: Colla, Nicholas (CAT); Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing- Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - February 1, 2017, 4:00 p.m.

Good Afternoon,

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: February 1, 2017

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:00 p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints -

File No. 16092: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Dr. Lydia Leung, Department of Public Health, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. On December 20, 2016, the Complaint Committee acting in its capacity to hear complaints heard the matter and referred it to the Task Force for hearing without recommendations.)

File No.16106: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Andrew Perry, Anne Brask and the Planning Department, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.2l(c), by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. (On December 20, 2016, the Complaint Committee acting in its capacity to hear complaints heard the matter and referred it to the Task Force for hearing with recommendations to find violations.)

File No. 16107: Complaint filed by the Library Users Association against Director Ed Reiskin, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner. (On December 20, 2016, the Complaint Committee acting in its capacity to hear complaints heard the matter and referred it to the Task Force for hearing with recommendations to find violations.) PS93 File No. 16109: Mike Black against Animal Care and Control for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.21, 67.24, and 67.26, and Government Code, Section(s) 6252(e) and 6253(a), by failing to respond to a request for Public records in a timely and/or complete manner. (On December 20, 2016, the Complaint Committee acting in its capacity to hear complaints heard the matter and referred it to the Task Force for hearing with recommendations to find violations.)

SPECIAL ORDER -The hearings on File Nos. 16091 and 16099 will not begin earlier than 6:00 p.m.

File No. 16091: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against Director LeeAnn Pelham and Commissioners Paul Renne, Peter Keane and Quentin Koop (Ethics Commission), for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.15 and 67.21, by not allowing an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interested to the public that are within the policy body's jurisdiction, abridging or prohibiting public criticism of the policy, procedures programs or services of the City and by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner (September 26, 2016, Ethics Commission meeting). (On January 9, 2017, the Compliance and Amendments Committee acting in its capacity to hear complaints heard the matter and referred it to the Task Force for hearing with recommendations to find no violations.)

File No. 16099: Complaint filed by Michael Petrelis against the San Francisco Ethics Commission for alleg~dly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67;7 (a) and 67.15, by failing to post an agenda containing a meaningful description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting and failing to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body on items of interest to the public (October 16, 2016, meeting). (On January 9, 2017, the Compliance and Amendments Committee acting in its capacity to hear complaints heard the matter and referred it to the Task Force for hearing with recommendations to find violations.)

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For additional document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing.

For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm,.January 25, 2017. ·

Victor Young Administrator Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 ·San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

ll.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

p7sg4