so i am -- >> based on the idea that we have had and the discussion in september, i would be more comfortable with a 1.75 as opposed to raising in all the way without more data supporting that number. >> i support the lower number. >> i am inclined toward the lower number. one of the voters purposes here was to try to restrain spending.

in to restrain limits on spending. in the absence of a record that gives us some of the number to work from, that is the one. i would tilt in that direction. >> as we approach the next mayoral election, are we able to revisit the amount and change it? is it basically written in stone at that point? gosh we are free to go back and change the ordinance, but as always, you need a super majority of the ethics commission and the board. these changes are going behalf very simple. >> i still favor the lower amount.

>> this will be speaking with a soft cap, right? it would make more sense to me if we did the lower amount. >> there are concerns, constitutional concerns about the soft cast. in light of what the decision says, where the president has come out today, it is a risk worth taking. and what about the issue of equalizing the amounts for incumbents and not incumbents? are we an agreement that the number should work out so that an incumbent would earn $2,500 less on publicly available funds? so that the total amount that

they could spend would be the same, and there wouldn't be a campaign surplus to deal with assuming there was no expenditure khafre's? the action that makes sense to me, too. and >> so then is there a motion to amend the thing as proposed with the following recommendations, before an incumbent for the board of supervisors race, there would be an adjustment in the matching funds? and to the adjustment to the one-to-one match from 35,000 to 32,500.

whereby an incumbent candidate, they would both be able to raise a maximum of $250,000 subject to the ceiling being raised? with a further amendment and that he may borrow a ceiling at the similarly adjusted to reflect a total cap of 1.7 $5 million. -- $1.75 million. it would apply to both an incumbent candidate in the non- incumbent candidate for mayor. >> so moved. >> all in favor? >> you have seomthi -- something

to day? -- to say? >> i think it should be made clear, i am not trying to influence the vote, but to clarify, the charts here don't take into account contributions that are unmatchable. in practice, the total theoretical matter of 155,000 never really gets achieved unless the itc is raised and there is more contributions because you will always have friends and family from out of town or other contributions that are not natural. some of the other proposals that were looked at in november and december had a line for the type of funds and not subject to match. >> i think we understand that it would be only matching funds. >> if you're going to 1.75 on

the mayoral race, what amount is the public fund cap that is now 1.225? that is important for you to make clear. i have not done the math. >> i think it goes to 1.075, but again, i would leave it to the staff to make the corresponding reduction based on the motion. >> they will figure it out, i am told. >> demotion was seconded, justice of the record is clear. all in favor? opposed? it passes the post. thank you for all of you that came. and we thank the staff and supervisors and all of those that participated.

this was a helpful process that we engaged in pretty quickly and godspeed. the next item on the agenda is the budget discussion. would you like to introduce this? >> the recommendation has become somewhat customary for our commission. the city has had quite a difficult budget situation. at issue, we have been requested to make cuts by the mayor's budget office, and at the same time, the ethics commission is an independent agency that has a slightly different status. because we are moving to a two- year budget cycle, the target was cut 5% of of this year's budget for next year.

another 5% for the following year and to provide a 2.5% contingency. the five-year plan of the ethics commission would require more staffing among other things for us to be able to leave the entire mission because of the budget situation. it is extremely unlikely. out of respect for the budget process and acknowledging the ethics commission's independence, i am recommending we put in a request equal to this year's budget and would allow us to go forwarrd with the same staffing level as they are now. there are no other accounts with insufficient funds to meet the targeted cuts. it would mean an immediate loss of staff for next year and an

additional loss for the following year. we would respectfully work with the mayor's budget office and the board of supervisors. >> thank you for our working -- for working very effectively with the staff, considering the budget cuts. >> i would mention that the budget analyst was here for a while but i guess he had to go. >> public comment on this matter? >> this is a two-year budget. the memo is not so specific.

the calendar item is not that specific. there is a public hearing requirement for the budget and the caption is not that clear. if you are intending to act tonight rather than in february since the deadline is prior to your next meeting, i would support the staff recommendation. i think it is important to include narrative for the transmittal that explains to some extent what the existing resources permit you to do. and what reducing the level of resources would mean in terms of loss of staff. and on the other end, what additional resources would allow you to do. it makes a good argument for the

middle position of keeping things roughly as they are. i think that would help. it doesn't detail the existing staff and a non-staff costs. and actually, if you're having to produce a contingency cut, i would immediately offer televising the meetings as being something to offer. i continue to think it is a bad idea and a waste of funds. as we have seen tonight, everyone is gone. >> but we have no idea the scope of the audience. >> thousands are watching and people, and say every day, i see you on tv. >> perception, david. >> comments or questions from

the commissioners on the budget request? commissioner studley: these are tough times, but this is for respect for the city's budget situation. commissioner hur: is there a motion to approve the city's budget request? commissioner studley: i move. commissioner hur: second? it is approved. minutes from the december 11, 2011 meeting. any comment? >> david. it was actually the meeting of december 12, so it was correct on the draft minutes but not the agenda. i can mark up the minutes if you would like. there were a couple of instances

of some other typos, page five, a decision 6, i think that should be executive director st. croix. i think there are some other instances that could be made slightly more clear. the attached 150-word statement, i think that is fine, but i would suggest adding what agenda item each statement was in relation to because there were several from an individual that do not track easily, just to indicate that that was submitted in connection with the item whatever, and finally, the closed session does not have the detail that is required under the sunshine ordinance as to who was present in closed session, so that, too, could be added. again, i could market up and give it to the staff, but they are just minor. commissioner hur: commissioner

studley? \] commissioner studley: i agree, and if they could be referred to by the roman numeral. on page two, there is a were missing. i believe that it should say it to pass the exam, and two comments were evolving -- involving my remarks. on page 3, third from the bottom. i think it would be a little clearer it said it would allow the commission to provide a $5,000 match to the candidate who raised $5,000 with a larger number of contributors than currently required, or while increasing the number of contributors, something like that to indicate that mechanism, and then if you would indulge me on page 8, items for future meetings, i believe or at least

intended my comment under that item to be a suggestion, so the vice chair person suggested that the ethics commission consider that a future meeting whether to initiate, so i was not stating that we should but suggesting that we bring it up for discussion. thank you. commissioner huyr: -- hur: any other comments with respect to the minutes? commissioner ?s -- studley: i will move it with respect to the revisions. >> what is the requirement with respect to indicating the individuals who appear before us in closed session?

i assume that there is no issue identifying the people, but i want to make sure before we do. it is not confidential who appeared in private session proof commissioner studley: if it is a case of probable cause and that it is found that it is not probable cause, then there is an issue of confidentiality? >> the sunshine ordinance says those appearing in closed session need to be identified except where their identification would interfere with other things, so you may rewrite that to save that it was the members present, staff, the city attorney, and identified or something, but just some language about who was present. that would work.

>> if it was legal advisor, i understand it might be different, because situations. >> yes. thank you. commissioner: commissioner studley has made a motion. all in favor? opposed? it passes. next item, the executive director's report. executive director secory -- st. kohring -- st. croix: i anticipate this being either a daytime meeting or a meeting early in the meeting starting at 4:00 or 5:00, something like that. but we first have to identified

the dates that rooms are available and the dates that commissioners and members of the sunshine task force, so it will take a little doing, but now we are in the new year as stated, we will move ahead on that. commissioner hur: thank you. >> the next as public comment. >> legislative proposals. the toe and legislation that was referred to reegie corona and legislation -- the code and legislation -- cohan legislation. they could apply for and be certified for public financing. does the staff have an intention or need directions about how to proceed in the event that a

candidate does raise funds and seeks certification while that legislation is pending, because in theory, they would be subject to the current rules. that was kind of an open question. i suppose it depends in part on when that redistricting task force gets their work done, but, anyway. thanks. commissioner hur: the next item on the agenda is items for future meetings. commissioners? public comment? public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda which are within the jurisdiction of the ethics

commission. is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? commissioner studley: so moved. commissioner hur: commissioner -- seconded. opposed? meeting is adjourned. [gavel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- --www.ncicap.org--

[horns honking] [siren wails] announcer: big dreams and goodrades aren't enough to get into college. there are actual steps you need to take. finding someone who can help

is the first and most important. for the next steps, go to knowhow2go.org. [music] paratransit is specialized transportation for seniors and people with disabilities who are unable to use the muni system. in san francisco, we're proud that we've had a paratransit program since 1978 long before it was mandated by the americans with disabilities act in 1990. san francisco is a unique city

and our paratransit program reflects this. we have a network of services, including sf access van service, paratransit taxi, including wheelchair accessible ramp taxi and group van which serves groups of individuals going to a single location like a senior center. [music] >> i'm elsa scott and i'm a retired federal employee and i'm a native of san francisco. i use paratransit because, i've been using it for about six years because six years ago i had to start dialysis treatments at cpmc. so i'm very dependent on paratransit three times a week, coming and going.. my current driver is brian berquist.; he's just such a friendly, sort of a teddy bear kind of a guy. i don't know what it is about

brian, but all of us old ladies want to feed brian. [music] >> hi, my name is fred lein. i'm most proud of driving a ramp taxi since the beginning of the program in 1994. [music] >> fred, you are the absolute best! thank you fred for providing transportation for me and opening up my social life, and taking care of medical appointments, taking care of my mother [music] >> hi, my name is ann bailey

and i've driven for luxor for almost five years now. i drove for desoto cab for 10 years prior to that. i drove in 1976 for the old, old yellow cab. this is frances mecchi and i've been driving her for about 11 or 12 years to her alzheimer's day program, which we call the memory club. every day when we drive through the presidio she'll say, "oh goody, you're taking me through the enchanted forest." [music] >> my name amr a.mahmoud. i am like 49 years old. i have been driving cab more than 13 year in general.

then i drove a ramp more than 3 years. this is my fourth now. i have been enjoying doing the job. i like every moment of it. >> thank you amr. [music} >> hi, my name is peter and i'm a paratransit driver for medsam, and this is north and south of market where i pick up my group and drop them off at home. >> thank you , peter! [singing] you are my sunshine. very good driver. she says driver is very good. number 1. [music]

larry mingo, mobility plus driver, san francisco paratransit. >> thank you, mingo. >> you're welcome. >> hi, mingo. >> thank you, mingo. >> thank you, mingo. thank you. [music] >> thank you, larry mingo. >> hey larry mingo, you are awesome. thanks for a great, great job you do for us. appreciate it. >> thank you, mingo. [music] >> hello, my name is james fells i've been working with paratransit for 13 years now. i get a kick out of the job; i like helping people you know when they need help to go shopping or getting picked up

at the medical building. i really like helping people and that's why i've been working so long. >> hi, my name is kalani. i'm a driver with mobility plus. i love my job! and i've been working, i've been a driver since may and i'm pretty satisfied with the company. so, two thumbs up, hope you guys have a nice day. >> sandra johnson and i've been working for mobility plus for about 4 and a half years. i love it. this is my job and i love it. it's very rewarding for me. one of my proudest moments is one of my clients left his cane on the bus and i've been picking him up now for about three years so i know that that cane was important to him. and i had dropped him off and i noticed the cane later on that day so i kept it with me and when i went back down to la play, when i worked my way