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 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--