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-- captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor chiu: please call the roll.

>> roll-ca[roll-call] mr. president, there is a quorum. supervisor chiu: ladies and gentlemen, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> [inaudible] to the public for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. supervisor chiu: madam clerk, are there any communications? >> no. supervisor chiu: please read the it -- the event agenda. items one through 17. >> it will be decided upon with

a single roll call vote. supervisor chiu: would anyone like to sever these items? >> items 1 through 17, supervisor:? aye -- supervisor cohen? aye. [takes roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: item number 18, please. >> item number 18. $75,009,139 of 2008 clean and safe park bond sale proceeds to fund the improvement and construction at various recreation and park facilities, including $61,185,271 in the recreation and park department commission for fy2011-2012. supervisor chiu: this ordinance is passed. item number 19. >> item number 19.

ordinance appropriating $4,442,514 consisting of $3,709,630 in fund balance and $732,884 in interest earnings from the sale of the watermark land and condominiums to the port commission in fy2011-2012 to be used for the development of the brannan street wharf and the mixed-use cruise terminal at pier 27 and placing $614,000 on controller's reserve pending receipt of the projected interest earnings. supervisor avalos: -- supervisor chiu: same house, col. it this item is passed. item number 20. >> item number 20. ordinance amending the san francisco health code by adding article 39, sections 39.01 through 39.13, to license and regulate commercial dog walkers operating on park property. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. item number 21. >> item 21. ordinance re-appropriating $1,574,127 of general fund reserves for state revenue loss to backfill federal funding reductions to hiv-aids programs at the department of public health in fy2011-2012. supervisor chiu: same house, same call. next item -- this item is passed. next item? >> item number 22. ordinance authorizing the san francisco public defender's office to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount

of $231,147 from the correction standards authority for the purpose of establishing a legal educational advocacy program; and amending ordinance no. 146- 11 -- annual salary ordinance, fy2011-2012 -- to reflect the addition of one class 8177 trial attorney grant-funded position -- 0.50 fte -- at the san francisco public defender's office. supervisor chiu: same house, col. this ordinance is passed. next item? >> item number 23. ordinance -- approving regulations for jane warner plaza at the intersection of castro and 17th streets and harvey milk plaza adjacent to the intersection of castro and market streets -- and two, authorizing official acts in connection with the regulations. supervisor chiu: i wanted to mention that the technical issues with our monitor system has been ongoing. when your done speaking, it would be great if you could click it off, so that we know you have already spoken. >> we are waiting for amendments from the city attorney's office that have not arrived yet. they are right there. actually, can we move it to after item 29?

>> colleagues, let's move, hold on to item 23 so that we can circulate the amendments being provided to us by the city attorney. let's move to item 24. madam clerk, please read item 24. >> item number 24. motion appointing supervisor eric mar, term ending november 28, 2012, to the california state association of counties. supervisor chiu: without objection, he shall be reduced. can we take a roll call vote? >> [roll-call vote] there are 10 ayes.

supervisor chiu: the motion is approved. item number 25? >> item number 25. motion approving the mayor's appointment of richard hillis to the board of appeals, for the term ending july 1, 2012. supervisor chiu: roll-call vote, please. >> [roll-call vote] there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: the motion is approved. item number 26? >> item number 26. motion appointing supervisor carmen chu, term ending june 30, 2013, to the association of bay area governments executive board. supervisor chiu: without

objection, she shall be excused. roll-call vote? >> [roll-call vote] there are ten ayes. supervisor chiu: the motion is approved. let's skip over the 3:00 p.m. special order in go to item 29. >> it was considered at the regular meeting, monday, january 30, and is recommended -- approved as recommended. ordinance amending the san francisco planning code section 249.42 to: 1) allow outpatient medical care clinics; 2) amend zoning map sheet 8 su of the san francisco planning code to add parcels in assessor's block no. 5211, lot nos. 29 through 54 to the india basin special use

district and remove the parcel in assessor's block no. 5211, lot no. 28 from the design and development special use district and add it to the india basin special use district; and 3) make environmental findings and findings of consistency with general plan. supervisor chiu: if we could take a roll-call vote on this item? >> [0 call vote] -- roll-call vote] there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: passed on the first reading. madam clerk, let's go back to item 23, regulations on harvey milk plaza. at this time, let's call on supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. i want to make some brief opening remarks. then i will be offering several amendments. so, today, colleagues, we are considering it modest and basic

legislation to fill a gap in the law, putting ltd. and needed rules in place in two of the most important public spaces in the castro. the castro has very, very limited public space. while there are great parts on the periphery of the neighborhood, in the castro itself there is very little public space. jane warner and harvey milk plaza is not large. those are small and they've restrain space. there is a very diverse array of people using these spaces and it is important that everyone be able to use them. most public spaces in san francisco, while freely available to the diversity of the community, they have roles. we have a very extensive parts code governing the parts system. none of these roles have

undermined the freedom of the enjoyed community. rather, these rules make sure that these spaces are usable by everyone. through a quirk in the law, the jane warner and harvey milk plaza is not covered by any of the rules typically applied to public spaces. recently san francisco has added a significant number of public spaces, with jane mourner being the first such space. we have turned parking spots. it has been expanding and i know it will continue to expand in the future. now is the time to make sure that these new spaces, which are not parks or sidewalks, have basic rules in place to make sure they are expendable by everyone. this legislation is basic and limited. contrary to the claims that have been made, the legislation is

not even close to draconian and it does not even remotely affect the community's right to assemble. that is why this legislation has received such broad support in the neighborhood from many individuals that often do not agree with each other. this legislation has been endorsed by the castro eureka valley neighborhood association, the dubose neighborhood association, the point of this that neighbor association, -- buana vista neighborhood association, and the market castro of mumsy. briefly, this is what the legislation does. the possibility open 24 hours per day. but it prohibits camping and sleeping in the plaza. camping is already prohibited in city parks. it requires th