08-09-2011 CC RPT 11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

within your particular body. Do you recommend to, say, the sponsoring council person that this person be removed? [inaudible] awarding, etc., etc. I would maintain that in the particular case before us none of this happened, that this should be a matter which should be considered by the CPRC. Mr. Brandriff is alleged to have had excessive absences, but yet two other individuals on that same panel had more absences than he. I would first submit that absences per se are not a basis for a complaint. This is an issue, an internal issue I would maintain, that should be handled by the particular panel or commission in question. One might wonder then why was Mr. Brandriff picked? The question... answer is obvious: political reasons. Here is an opportunity to embarrass a gentleman who is in a contested race for the City Council, and who have they selected to make the complaint? Well, the gentleman Morales here. Those of us who felt his own civil tongue on many occasions recognizes that he pops up to spout on anyone who dares to question the activities of Councilman Adams. Thus, his appearance here before you today. I would challenge him to find out any specific reason, any valid reason that Mr. Brandriff should be charged with violation of ethics or ethical behavior merely because of absences. It takes much sturdier stuff than this to file a complaint and I would wonder why this particular body is wasting its time hearing it. But, be that as it may, these are the things I think you should consider. Thank you for your time ELLIOTT: Next I have a, is it Mary Shelton? SHELTON: I'm [inaudible] ethics complaint that I've been at by Mr. Morales. I would just like to say that when it comes to absences I'd like to add on to what he said is that there's separation as you know between excused absences and unexcused absences, and most of the penalties apply to unexcused absences over the excused absences. Mr. Brandriff here had a couple of absences due to when he had shoulder surgery. I remember that period very well because I'm aware he missed a meeting during that time, and I had contacted him about what had happened at that meeting because something was going on and talked to him and I just, you know, I can understand it where, I mean, you know, somebody would take off time when they're having surgery. I mean we have Council members who have surgery, including Mr. Adams — not to pick on him but just to bring it up the fact that he had surgeries because of injuries that were caused preventing his retirement from the police force, and I would not expect nor would I want Mr. Adams to be at meetings conducting business if it's going to affect his recovery and if it's going to affect his ability to do business. So I mean, couldn't we over, an excused absence over surgery is just, it's silly. And I'm not speaking to whether quibbling over absences is silly, but as he also pointed out there were two commission members who had more, at least as many absences or more. One of them was actually allowed to run for a position even though he's no longer on the Commission now, but he had more absences, and he had to conduct his votes by teleconference and Mr. Priamos is aware of that because Mr. Priamos under the Brown Act had to set up those conference calls for him. So when it comes to absences, you know, there was more people that were more absent than he was so to speak, and they're not the target of ethics complaints at the moment as far as I know. Mr. Brandriff is a very involved commission member. I can't say I always agree with him. I have had my share of arguments with him. But he does listen to you and he doesn't call you names or anything like that, and he doesn't like criticize you and he's very civil during his discourse on the Commission. You can go and listen to the numerous recordings that are available to the Commission office. He stood up on principle for transparency over a panel that they wanted to meet secretly as an ad hoc committee just to discuss 11 -3