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--

president chiu: welcome to the board of supervisors meeting for tuesday, january 24th. please call the roll. >> mr. president, there is a quorum. president chiu: could you please

join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> i pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands. one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. president chiu: you should have the december 6th and december 13th board minutes. can i have a motion to approve those minutes? without objection, those are approved. are there any communications? >> there are no to medications. president chiu: can we go to the consent agenda. >> unless anyone would like to have one remove, these will not be voted on separately.

president chiu: can we have a roll call vote? supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor elsberndfarrel: super farrell:. >> item 5 ordinance amending city ordinances. president chiu: can we take a

roll call vote? >> there are nine ayes and one no. president chiu: item 6. >> resolution authorizing the sale of city property at the northern corner of fulton street and gough street to the boys and girls club of san francisco. president chiu: supervisor olague, you have some amendments? supervisor olague: i would like to thank those who made this possible but also those that make sure it was the best deal it could be. i would like to thank my fellow co-sponsors, members of the

committee, the boys and girls club, and the mayor's office of housing, for making sure that we have the best deal for this neighborhood, for my constituents, and for the entire city. these amendments to a number of things including they make clear the history behind the octavia boulevard access parcel, the redevelopment agency purchase of parcels in 2001 and in 2002 as well as the use of the remaining parcels and use of the revenue. make certain that 100% of the purchase price as well as any participation in additional residential, commercial projects built on the site goes to the mayor's office of housing. finally, we are calling for an informational hearing at the budget committee. this hearing would include an update on the progress thus far

including construction of octavia boulevard and the central freeway ancillary project disposition and, as well as any remaining obligation from the cooperative agreement with caltrans. these amendments improve the benefit to the city, they ensure that not only do we see a boys and girls club in a neighborhood where it is needed, but we also ensure that affordable housing, one of our highest priorities here in the city of san francisco, remains well funded. it is my understanding that the city attorney has been that these amendments are not substantive. i look forward to supporting this project and this resolution and i encourage my fellow members of the board of supervisors to do the same thing. president chiu: calis, supervisor olague has made some

amendments. is there any objection? without objection, those amendments are made. supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: make you. i appreciate supervisor olague making these amendments. i used to work at the girls and girls club. i see what it really brings to the communities. i wanted to support this project. especially in the western addition, moving where it is that currently to this location will serve a different part of the community. i'm really happy to support this project now, thank you for your work.

i would like to thank the girls and boys called for their flexibility. thank you. president chiu: supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. this was not and easy vote for me not because i'm against the underlying goals of the project. the boys and girls club is an amazing organization. i do have concerns about the process that was followed as far as the sale and there was no competitive bid process that was followed. i do believe that this deal is substantially better today than it was before. i want to recognize the work that supervisor olague and her office had put into this project. they have taken something that they inherited and in a very short time, they certainly made it much better. in recognition of that, i will be supporting this. i would like to do that out of

deference to supervisor olague who as a district supervisor knows better than anyone knows what it means for this community. the project itself and the proposal has been improved i think on balance and it makes me want to support this. i would like to thank supervisor olague and all of the members of the community who have worked on this and we look forward to the boys and girls club continuing to serve the community. this is a great organization. for that reason, i am proud to support it. president chiu: supervisor kim. supervisor kim: thank you. i would want to echo of some of the sentiments from my colleagues. we greatly support the building of the girls and boys club. this is a huge addition to the community and families. this will augment many of the

services that we provide in the tenderloin with additional recreational activities and facilities that our families can utilize. mainly are around the issues that were stated by supervisor campos. i hope that in the future i hope that we don't have projects that did not go through the competitive process because we have any organizations here in san francisco that can do this work. i'm happy to seal the deal has been improved. -- see that the deal has been improved. i am glad the supervisor at the lobby has made recommendations that the funding goes to housing. -- i am glad to see that supervisor olague has made recommendations that the funding goes to housing. this is something that will also benefit our youth and families here in the city. i would like to thank the

supervisors for that and i'm happy to support this today. president chiu: any further discussion? supervisor olague, i assume you want to be added as a co- sponsor. why don't we take a roll call on this item? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye/ >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> item 7 is a recommendation approve in a lease for a certain real property located at pier 54