driving issues for me. the current ceiling worked for at least this year. and for the cost of campaigning -- this does increase. i think the increase is necessary in the next four years. i am certainly open to a lower ceiling for the mayor's race. this number is amenable for my -- for myself, personally, but cannot speak for everyone. >> and are there any further questions. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to take public comment on this matter, -- if the commissioners would agree. >> good evening again, commissioners. i appreciate supervisor kim's

proposal in attempting to make this more compliant with the decision. although i would oppose any increases in the cap amounts for supervise elections, i don't think that there is any data showing why the presidential caps are not adequate for anyone who would not want to run for supervisor or mayor. as you know, the public financing comes out of the general fund and we're looking at another $300 million deficit this year at least. i think this money could be spent more appropriately. i am against increasing these caps on public financing for a supervisor's order may years. you have no information showing why the present cap is not

adequate. thank you. >> thank you, mr. hill. >> did evening and thanks to everyone who participated. this is a good process involving the ethics committee and the board, to draft something given this supreme court ruling. you had to make some changes. raising the caps is appropriate, both in the here and now and in the future, and talking to the board members, there was one particular individual who thought that this number was perhaps too low. you have to keep in mind these are supervisors that may be thinking about their own elections, in the future.

a lot of this depends on if you have a hard cap, or you have the adjustable cap. i think the adjustable capa's also an issue for some members of the board, and a hard cap is something they don't refer. you have public perception issues, about how much is too much, given the current climate, and there is the issue -- i think it is legally at risk to have the adjustable cap of any kind and if you read the supreme court ruling, in the bennett case, it did not say that it was because of public financing, it was because a privately-financed candidates -- this would create a chilling

effect by making them think, if i spend more money, the candidate will be able to get more money. i think that this is an issue and you definitely want to give some thought to this. it may not be an agent -- a reason not to do this, because we need the board of supervisors. it is good public policy to have that happen if we can get away with it, and we can track the independent expenditures, which is also a valuable service to the community. one quibble i would raise is that if you look at pages 4 and 5 of the memo, the incumbents actually end up getting $5,000 more in private money than the non-incumbents on page 5, which is $25,000 more. you can adjust these numbers so

the finance rate -- in that column for the match of $35,000, if you change that to $32,500, the number at the bottom will add to 250,000, and the one-one, instead of 275,000, if you lower this, this is 62,500, this is equal to the amount that the non-incumbents received. it looks strange if they are allowed to have more money, and why go there, if you adjust the numbers a little bit to make that add up. >> i have a number of things to say but let me try to get through this. i am certainly supportive of making changes to the program along the lines of what we have

discussed in the past. there are things i generally like about the legislation and there are things i am concerned about. i would start in reverse, with section 2 and the changes to the visible elections code, this seems to violate the single subject rule of the ordnance and i would suggest that this be divided into a separate file. this does have an impact on the program as it relates to the deadline for filing the nomination papers, moving this to 146, out of almost two months earlier, and i would note that -- this would affect the candidates, and all of the elected offices in the city, including the school board and the college board.

on the rest of the legislation, starting on page 3 of the legislation, i certainly support the 10,000 contributors and would not necessarily leave this at -70, and this is the deadline for filing the nomination papers. this would give somewhat more time but this depends on the filing deadline. >> did you say more time -- which way? >> the idea is that if the deadline is e -88, someone can file until the end of august, the e-70 deadline to get sufficient, qualified contributions from this number of contributors may be as short as 18 days if they file at the

last minute. and there have been instances of that recently. my thought was that if the filing deadline remains this way, giving this to 60 or 28 days to gather significant contributions for the number in value would offer more level playing field to the extent that the deadline is moved back by 58 days and this will change up the whole thing. >> i think he is still using this any way. a question for you. >> i have some other things -- >> with respect to the first thing, i think you referencing something about the timing and how this is a multiple issue in one piece of legislation?

can you talk about what you were referring to? >> section 2 on page 15, the 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