municipal elections, by moving the filing deadline, this is not directly related to the public financing program, and to th i y violate the single subject rule, with respect to the ordnances. >> do we have that? you mentioned that these comments -- >> again, i have no particular problem with the 15,000 threshold for the incumbents and i agree with mr. hill, you can make that change in the third tier 2 address that. with respect to the mayor, i still think this should be raised to 80,000, and if you use the same 1.5 factor that would require 120,000 in qualifying

contributions from at least 1200 contributors by a certain deadline. if they are incumbent i would support the mayoral iec of $2 million on page four and five. the timing of the payments on page 7, 142 days. i think that this kind of works. i would look at something in that neighborhood that was like 147. there was a provision elsewhere that candidates can claim the funds up to 40 days after the election and i thought that the program has 40 days post for a total of 180 days. this is close to that. 142 eventually falls on a sunday.

and there is a proposal to eliminate the candidate available disbursement limit and i think that this is important to retain because this is not always necessarily the case, that there are no funds in the campaign fund/the number of candidates to provide the maximum allowable funds, and that is why this process as in the legislation. eliminating that may cause some confusion in the event that the fund is not fully replenished. i think that is close to the end. >> a thank-you. >> on page 14 and 15, with respect to the effects of violations, the language could

be clarified a little so that the mayor may suspend any member of the board for such violations, to keep the member from office and not the candidate, although it does suggest in that construction that an incumbent member of the board, if of violating the provision could be removed from office simply for a campaign violation while in office as opposed to a candidate running who is not -- who has not attained office. this may be the construction but maybe i am wrong, i am not certain if i am reading this correctly. >> i am hillary ronin and i work for supervisor campos and i want to thank you for the work

you have done and for meeting with our office, and what is before you today, i wanted you to know that his intention is not to move ahead with the ordinance that is currently before the place on the june ballot. if you do approve, what is before you today, this meets the approval of the board of supervisors. there is only one difference between the proposal today, this is the software the hard cap. he had a small preference for the hard cap because this was cleaner, and the safest way to go, he agrees with the preferences for the soft cap.

this may indeed come before him. thank you very much. >> do you have comments on this legislation? >> i think that the confusion is because there are a couple of tyoppos. this should be the private funds based on the incumbents, and the rest should be private funds. the reason these numbers are different, is because they have a penalty. they have to raise 5000 more than the non-incumbents. mayoral candidates and incumbents. they have to do this to achieve

the same -- and that is why these are written the way that they are. >> as a matter of perception, the incumbent can raise more money, and the cap is essentially higher. as a matter of perception, -- >> this is 155 total public funds. >> and they can spend 255. >> and i see what you are saying. >> the answer is that they only spend 250 unless the individual has missed this. what we would do is advise them, they may have this in their account and they can only spend 250 unless this is raised.

>> i would be interested in the notion of higher expectations in the first place, and perhaps supervisor kim -- i don't want to drag you forward, question by question. i was interested in this when i read this, and i would like more background on the thinking about, why to do this and why this would be defensible? >> thank you. the question is why we want to raise the qualifications for the incumbents? the thought was that the board of supervisors get to vote on the ordinance that benefits us

and we thought this was a perception issue. this is not something i am personally tied to. but for the perception of the voters, along the financing law -- i was not aware that there would be a different -- the difference, i thought that they would work out the numbers. i thought this would hit the ceiling of $50,000. they have the additional $5,000 that they cannot spend unless they have a small cap, and this is what we are open to, and the supervisors are able to vote on the ordinance that is technically able to benefit us.

>> you don't think that this would be a significant issue, we don't think this would be raised with the not incumbent and the incumbent at 250. >> i don't know if the numbers work out. my apology for not looking further into the mechanism. this is what impact of the final campaign amount. >> i have a question, your description is helpful, and it makes me wonder if there is anything in the opposite >> what i am picturing as a real conversation on the ground in which somebody seeking contributions from others say, i need your help, will you please give me a contributions of the eye can qualify?

if they have to raise more in order to do that, does that give them the kind of leverage? it is a responsibility wrap up with people you can ask, but it also is -- >> i have to raise $75,000. it is much higher than $50,000, i am not sure if it would be more urgent. >> if you take me back to the

supervisor numbers, those are pretty basic. if it helps keep the number relatively low, i think that is -- >> you had some suggestion for adding up an equal way. >> for the board, on the bottom of page four, when you get the one to one, under the part where public funds become private

funds, fix the typo. the matching public funds would be 32,500. the total would equal 250,000. >> an incumbent candidate that accepted public financing would only be able to obtain the maximum of 150 to 500? >> that's right. >> it's just a bookkeeping thing. using your current numbers here, the same column, if you lower

the 275,000 to 262,500. both for the private funds raised by incumbents and matching funds, it brings it down to the same amount. the overall public matching funds would be $1.2 million. i think that is right. >> it is the same idea, right? it sounds like that would be logistically, perhaps, difficult to enforce. any thoughts from the staff on that? >> with respect to matching

public funds for non-incumbents, it would be as stated here. it is really just creating a different system, who won for incumbents and one for non incumbents. dodge there is only one incumbent per race. >> incumbents by virtue of incumbency have been through the process already. complicating it just a little bit more is not the same as making it more complicated for everybody. >> in terms of treating incumbents differently, the many people i have talked to, that is one recurring theme, not that everybody said it, a fair number of people said that incumbents already have the benefits of incumbency, why should they get public money at all? why should they -- in response

to a perception that incumbents should have to do a little bit more work and maybe get a little bit less money. in that sense, it responds to that perception. >> other comments from the commissioners in respect to the proposed legislation? >> i was going to comment that i think this proposal here has brought together issues that we have worked through throughout the last few months in a really coherent way. it brought together on issues of responding to persons meetings and it takes care of the constitutional fixed meeting. i would be in favor of voting for it. >> i have a concern similar to the one that you raised with

respect to fees soft cap for the male role elections. to me, the board of supervisors number is well reported by the data. what we have seen, the male role number certainly could escalate to the level of the cap proposed historic fleet and has not been that high. and the winner is a well-under the proposed cap. we're looking at an election four years from now and then four years after that. as i supported the last time around, i think 1.75 is more precarious. obviously, we're trying to submit something that meets our

goals and would find support at the board. is there procedure for providing a choice? we think 1.75 should be the number, 1.975 would be acceptable. >> not like that, no. you cou staff has recommended and adopted again with the different numbers and send them both. >> is that a serious complication? >> i would prefer you do it that way, because we have lots of numbers, lots of races under our

belts. we don't have the kind of data that we need to make a decision. it might be that the next mayoral race with a non- incumbent takes place, it is quite a distance down the road. the last time we had an open race, the winners spent in excess of 6 million. that number could be much higher. i would recommend that if you want to make that change, it would not be a difficult puzzle as is, the board can use its to determine which of the proposals they prefer.

>> they can take that into consideration. >> it is in part influenced by soft ceilings. i understand that the concern is much stronger, you need to set a limit that is realistic. even if the total, even if the soft cap turned out to be a little bit low eight years from now, a candidate could still compete by raising private funds. it looks like you had something? >> just one suggestion, really. you could approve it, but in a quick side bar, she expressed a strong preference for a single auction. --ahoy option -- option. it is really on her office to

move forward through the process. i think as a practical matter, it is easier to handle one option or one proposal as opposed to multiple proposals. >> it is true even if the proposal is not identical to what is here. sorry we are bringing you appear multiple times. >> i appreciate the discussion and the dialogue. it is my preference that we get one ordnance back to the board of supervisors. and around the male role ceiling, we look at the expertise of the ethics commission to help determine that number. whether it is 1.7 or 1.9, there is a level of deference that my colleagues will have in terms of the final number coming forward.

i think there is some disagreement, but not a very strong disagreement. i have generally heard a slightly more support. >> i would like to discuss the soft cap a little bit. have you said everything he said? >> by reading was that the supreme court was very specific to trigger a public funds december cement, that the burden was substantial and the independent rights of an insurer. because there wasn't a specific ruling to that particular issue, it is hard for us to say. i am sure that you have your opinions as well. i and the general feeling is that a soft cap is more fair.

if there is an independent party that decides to throw in an ordinance amount of funding opposing your candidacy, i think it is only fair that you should privately raised dollars. it is different from the other public financing schemes we have work that. it doesn't involve any public funding this embarrassment. there is a slight preference for that dollar amount. we partially addressed that raising the ceiling. in every race, we have had a raise the ceiling, and we reached the number that we thought was fairly reasonable to kind of run a credible campaign on the board of supervisors. i have generally heard a soft preference just in case there is a kind of on likely -- maybe not unlikely, but a scenario where you are vastly being outspent.

>> there are considerations that have been important in, and i wonder if you can speak to how they play out here. the government interest and participation in publicly financed campaign systems, and you think the soft vs. hard cap will make it more likely that candidates will feel comfortable or safe participating in races? >> definitely, when candidates are considering what route they are going to go down, their ability to compete will decide if they decide to take public financing or not. much of the practices were in order to encourage as many people as possible to participate in public financing. we have really seen that, too. there has really been an increase in the number of

candidates participating in public financing. it has been helpful creating similar budgets amongst a variety of campaigns. and allowing candidates to spend time with the voters. fund-raising takes up an inordinate amount of time when you are running and can take away from the time that you spent door knocking, having visibility, interfacing with what voters want to see. i think i had a much stronger sense in what the district wanted, some of the goals and priorities, i was able to spend that time doing the groundwork. >> you're saying that the soft cap would give you the flexibility to run a more viable campaign as a publicly financed candidate? >> it would allow us to be competitive.

gosh and so you think that it will -- and given your feelings about that candidate, there are more likely to hear from incumbents that it was effective and secure enough to be willing to participate in the public financing program? >> i think so. >> further comments or thoughts from the commissioners? if you're going to go with the 1.75 cap, if you change it from 275,000 to 262,500, it will

lower it to 1.750. i think i've done the math right. the 1:1 match, right now starts at 275,000. get rid of that in the lower it to 162,500. and the match will be the same amount. in-house that comes to a total of 325,000. palin with the numbers of the above comes out to 1.1 million. double check my math. >> hollywood obviously make sure that the math is right. how do you feel about the threshold for mayor?

i am personally a little torn about it. i appreciate the statement about what was spent in the male role election prior to public financing, and it is certainly hard to predict for us, the next contest the election, when the right ceiling will be. it seems like a lot of money either way, a difference perhaps at that point is a bit on the margin, 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 h