maintain, again, the goal me know when they come back they need the time to go back to their child. they managed to take care of their own health or the child's health. because we have to work in the city in the confines of the city passed charter amendment in 2002. we do want to set an example for other employees to say, this is what the city is doing for our parents. this might be a great opportunity for you to look at your own policies to allow to maintain 40 hours on the books because it makes sense. they need a time to come back after they come back from parental leave because there's going to be health opportunities that come afterwards. >> okay. thank you very much. i next question. which i'm sure our viewers will be very interested in is, in your opinion come a deanna-we'll start with you-would you believe that fiscal impact will be on the city of doing something like this? >> welcome the controller's office as marcy mentioned, we

do an estimate on what to be on the city however, it is a very rough estimate because we do not know how many employees are actually married or in a domestic partnership. we don't know how many will actually be able to take the lead. we looked at our data from the past and employees were taking on an average month of paid parental leave because this is in addition to state and federal benefits, so in the end, it's up to the parent to decide much time they need to spend with her child in addition to the other benefits they have. they also have i accumulated a love sick and vacation time. so, talk to estimate. the controller's office did estimate half 1,000,000 to 1,000,000 but it's hard to estimate given our parents specific situation. so, the cost we believe is minimal compared to the lasting benefits to the child to the future citizens of our city. in that bonding time with her

parents. >> okay. marcy >> yes. it appears to me that indeed, it's an open ended expense. as you indicated. so, it would seem to me that yes, you do have to work with the confines of previous legislation voted by the voters did my job here today is to say, you know, think about it before you both some more. because it is totally open ended. as far as the wonderful benefits that accrue to the child, of course, of course. however, don't forget that were only talking about city employees. how about all the other people with the same situation? the only difference, of course, is that city employees have unlimited funds, just much more people. whereby the little business owner down the street cannot do that. so, you cannot just say look at the wonderful job we are doing and you do the same. it's not the same thing. >> so, disagreed where we are coming from. were coming from a

point that were not saying, look, now were getting both parents equal time. i want the city voters to say, let's give everybody equal time by giving the city employees the same thing as the little guy down the corner, the grocery store man that he gives his employees. >> okay. thank you very much for your comments. now, this is a employee benefits issue that's being put before the voters. do either of you-will start with marcy-do you have an opinion on whether this should be on the ballot? because sometimes people say well why am i even voting on this. >> i'm sorry i did not mean to interrupt. the answer, i think it's simple. every time it involves money,, whether it's an additional tax or an

additional expense, it has to go to the voters. so, even though we are talking about at the st anna said, i minimal amount, as i said before, we are making an diamond ourselves into bankruptcy. so that's why the voters have a say. >> thank you very much. deanna? >> again in 2002 it was the decision of those people to put it on the ballot and have the voters vote because we are making changes to that specific law we have to once again, go to the ballot as well. and, you know, issues when it's based on city employees, yes, this is a time for us to be in a gamble for everybody else to go off on what was originally voted in 2002, enhance it, and then in the future were committed to discussing how we can broaden this out and see how we can support our families in the city. definitely, that is what is coming down. now that this legislation is going because as i'll has nature the national

level of discourse with you discuss how we can improve it for our small businesses, from families who work in san francisco in all different types of jobs. >> deanna, you must been reading my mind because my next question was going to be, on the fact that this is now become a national matter of national interest. the current administration as a matter fact, is pushing the issue of paid leave, paid parental leave. so, based on what we have heard, the discourse we heard, the information we've gotten so far, in the news, do you believe that this particular measure goes far enough? should go further? or should be tapping off? do you have an opinion one way or another piano? >> i think this is again, in line with going on nationally statewide. the voters have the

in 22 more than a decade ago to address this issue get now the president has come out talking about it. six weeks on the books which is great. but we again are always striving to be a leader in supporting our families. that's why we took a look at the original lot to see how we can improve that specific law and these two measures i'm a we believe, do that and enhancing what we currently have. but this is not the end of that conversation get going for, again were going to look at how we can further support, continue to lead the way because although we lead the way nationally, globally, we are very far beyond what other countries are doing to support their families. as we've seen before in discussion, when the california paid family leave act employees were very concerned about it might hurt them as well financially. i'm sure they'll think same discussion and 22 in san francisco, but we've not been impacted negatively by supporting our families get

intact and i think it's the opposite. we received positive benefits from parents who come back refreshed, who at that time with their children and now are able to concentrate on the work and the family. so, we believe these two enhancements will continue that path and then we can look forward to see what we can do on a broader scale. >> thank you very much. marcy, i'd love to hear your remarks. >> thank you. i can only come from a libertarian point of view. the libertarian point of view strictly says, government has very limited job to do. in other words, parental leave and all that supporting families is simply not the business of government to do. but, again, this is a minority view. meaning that libertarians are a minority in the city. therefore, we are impacted by,

you know, the great majority that wants the big government, that wants to have all of these benefits. unfortunately, these people that vote you not--for these benefits-are not realizing i might guess who pays. they do. they should look at their paycheck, and what i say when i'm talking to them, look at your page and are you happy with what you see? if you see all these taxes disappearing, if your boss tells you, i can't give you a raise. the taxes are too high. then, you what to think, those benefits, somebody is paying for it and that is me. so, again, it strictly from a libertarian point of view. which is very different from the big government point of view. that san francisco enjoys.

>> thank you very much. now, this conversation has been great but we do have to have our final remarks now. marcy, i like to start with you. >> okay, thank you. let me wrap up with just what we were thinking about in our meetings. we were saying, okay, the idea, for example, the legislation says that the employees may not have "the financial resources to stay home on unpaid leave. yes, that's right. none of them out there do. it's not just the city employees. another thing would be for example, it helps [inaudible]. we have a huge amount of people already in government. we don't need to attract any more. again, speaking from the libertarian point of view. it helps with prosperity. well, you know, you kind of have to look at the big picture. the big picture will tell you, the more benefits you give, the higher the ability for

one group to spend more money while the other group spends less. so, we have not achieved anything. >> thank you very much. thank you very much for your remarks. grace. deanna? >> the voters voted in 2002 to provide these benefits for city employees and rear are just asking to look at that paid parental leave and see what we can do to enhance. if you believe that your parents should be given the opportunity to spend the same amount of time with her child, if you believe that when they come back they should have that opportunity to draw on what they currently approved for themselves for their sick time, to go back and take care of their child after that 12-16 week period, that there will be situations where they want to come back and take care of themselves with their child, those are the two measures that we are voting on and that is what we are building on on what the voters have done in 2002. again, this is not up on

rotation at some point and this november. it's going to go on and see how we can support all of our families in san francisco because we have led the way for more than a decade and we will continue to be that way for all of our jurisdictions. thank you. >> thank you very much for your comments also. we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures, in this years election, please visit the san francisco elections website at we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures, in this years election, please visit the san francisco elections website@sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8 am to 5 pm. you can also vote at city hall on the two weekends before election day. and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday to 5 pm. you can also vote at city hall on the two weekends before election day. and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 3. thank you for watching. >>[music] hello. i am maxine

anderson with the league of women voters of san francisco. along with the league and sf goth dd, i'm here to discuss proposition c a ballot measure that would be before the voters hello. i am maxine anderson with the league of women voters of san francisco. along with the league and sf goth dd, i'm here to discuss proposition c a ballot measure that would be before the voters on tuesday, november 3. individuals who are paid to directly contact city officers to it influence their legislative or administrative action are called lobbyists. their activities are regulated by the city's lobbyist ordinance. the ordinance does not address any direct lobbying

, also known as expenditure lobbying. we are persons solicit or urge others to directly contact city officers. proposition c was defined expenditure lobbies as any person or business days $2500 or more in a calendar month to solicit, request, or urge others to directly lobby city officers. a yes vote means you want the city to regulate its expenditure lobbyists by requiring them to register with the ethics commission pay a $500 registration fee, and filed monthly disclosures regarding their lobbying activities. a no vote means you do not want to make these changes. i am here with a lena schmidt a proponent of proposition c. we are also joined by debby lerman from the san francisco human services med network. and opponents of the measure. thank you both for being here. i would like to start with some opening

remarks. we'll start with you, first debbie. >> thank you, maxine. our organization has officially opposed this measure. last year we worked very closely with the board of supervisors, which was amending the current legislation on direct lobbyists and the board shows unanimously to exempt nonprofits from the legislation because of the potential showing chilling effect on nonprofit advocacy. the city relies on a diverse strong nonprofit sector on the front lines of healthcare, safety net environmental issues and other social issues. this legislation this ballot measure, will cause nonprofits to be afraid to engage in advocacy. i have worked for many many years with nonprofits that have misconceptions around the concept's role was. many

things are not even allowed to lobby the irs increases its scrutiny of nonprofits that do expensive lobbying. the foundations hesitate to fund him and we need to be sure that they can engage in the public debate >> thank you very much, dedicate a lena? >> thank you. i appreciate the league putting this together. let me say that this opposition, proposition c, the key is transparency. before i go into that let me also note the ethics commission is the organization that put it on the ballot. the ethics commission is an independent organization -independent commission. it has the authority to put something on the ballot. it had a series of hearings on it and open meetings on it, so that everything could be discussed and they voted unanimously to put it on the ballot the first time in 10 years that they did. when proposition c restores

what san francisco had until 2009 get it affirms the voters and the citizens tribunal to follow the money and that the dollars that are being used for lobbying should be open and expose it to the electorate. there has been in on this changed since-i'll stop. okay. >> thank you. thank you very much. i'm sure within my questions you have an opportunity to continue your thought. because, my first question to debbie is going to be, this measure sometimes colleges increasing transparent. you believe this ballot measure increases transparency and city government and elections? >> i think that this legislation would have unintended consequences. it will discourage nonprofits from advocating a nonprofits are often the only way are the have-nots of our city to organize themselves to speak out on issues. the ethics commission working with the

board of supervisors that in many advocates we have developed something that would not have had unintended consequences and that we would be able to change. so, it may increase transparency in reporting, the more likely it will lead nonprofits is that of same were going to register tuesday were going to advocate less and it will decrease transparency on the many issues that we debate every day. >> thank you. a lena. how do you feel on that? >> i think transparency is key to all this and i think that the nonprofits are already have to report on the 501(c)(3) 501(c) four at the report to the irs in previous two 2009, they were reporting to the ethics commission also. that there were a number of them that did and it didn't seem to have a lot of hammering or tampering of fact at that point. i think that the reason it went through the ethics

commission is because the ethics commission is independent and not subject to political pressure the way the board of supervisors candy. i think it's important that when you have regulations out there that cover a certain class of let's say, 501(c)(3) in this case, it is only equitable that it should cover all classes of the 501(c)(3)'s. so i think that's important. i think the other thing to remember is that since 2009, we have the supreme court ruling on citizens united and that citizens united meant a tremendous influx of dollars that were unregulated and undisclosed, and they often set up nonprofits in order-because that ensured that there would be -they do not have to list their

donors when they were a nonprofit. so, what we are trying to do is to make sure that everybody is covered in that everybody is treated equitably. >> thank you very much. going along with that, so, we get some sense to the people who viewed this, do you think this measure ballot measure goes far enough or do you believe it goes too far in your opinion and will start with you, i lena >> thank you. it's an interesting question. i think there has to be a number of issues that need to be looked at within the world of lobbying, but what this does is basically restore what we had before, makes it all-inclusive, which is what we had before, and that it's an enormous burst up and one that could make a difference down the road. >> thank you very much. debbie? >> it goes way too far. it was not necessary to include nonprofits in order to get at the types of problems that a lena has raised here. the ballot measure will require

for-profits to disclose their expenditures. it's the for-profit corporation establishes and astroturf nonprofit though for-profit corporation will have to disclose all their expenditures that they used to create the nonprofits and give to the nonprofit for the purpose of lobbying. >> okay. thank you very much for your answers to those questions and for the help you're giving to the voters of the city of san francisco. now, where can have your closing remarks. after closing remarks will start with you, i lena.. >> okay, thank you again for having this and letting us have a chance to talk about it. as i say, i think the important thing on this issue is transparency. i was the foreperson of the civil grand jury in 2013, i think 2014, and we look at the ethics commission investigated the ethics commission for 8+ months and came out of the report, this was one of our recommendations in the report. at this part be restored,. so,

certainly after all that scrutiny this was a good step in the right direction. i also want to say that i have also been with nonprofits both in terms of being on the board, being a staff member and all that. i understand the constrictions of time but i think if you accept the shield of the government i being a nonprofit and accept what goes with a 501(c)(3), you should be willing to be treated equally with other nonprofits and be able to put the information out there that the voters need so badly. >> thank you very much. debbie, your remarks. >> first of all, nonprofits are they in batumi community a better place. by passing a ballot measure that would require nonprofits to pay a $500 fee for the privilege of expressing their first amendment rights, we will have a situation where nonprofits will simply advocate less. the

more burdensome, the more complicated, we make the rules, the more nonprofits say, it is not worth the risk of trying to comply with these ordinance. it is not worth the trouble of having to file all these reports. we do not want to people-legislative [inaudible] and we want our nonprofits to be out there, expressing their opinions. the first amendment can be messy. we know that. we don't always agree with people that are expressing their opinion, and that's what it's about. we need to empower nonprofits to counter the money that's coming from the haves versus the have-nots. >> thank you, debbie and helene. thank you both for your comments and your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this, and other ballot measures in this years election, please visit the san francisco elections website at,

and other ballot measures in this years election, please visit the san francisco elections website@sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8 pm to 5 pm. you can also vote at city hall on the two weekends before election day. and, if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 3. thank you for watching. >>[music]