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--

>> yes. it would not be a tuesday if there were no appeal. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor chiu: good afternoon.

welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, have you very seventh, 2012. clerk, please call the roll. >> [roll call] mr. president, you have a quorum. supervisor chiu: ladies and gentlemen, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god with liberty and justice for all. supervisor chiu: colleagues, i

understand that supervisor," -- campos is not here. he is excused without objection. are there any communications? >> no. supervisor chiu: please read consent agenda. >> items numbers one through nine, acted upon with a roll call vote, unless it is discussed by request. supervisor chiu: would anyone like to sever these items? roll-call vote. >> items #139. -- one through nine. [calls roll call vote] there are ten ayes. supervisor chiu: those

ordinances are approved on final reading. item number 10. >> item #10. ordinance amending the san francisco environment code by: 1) amending section 1702 to extend the restrictions on checkout bags from supermarkets and chain pharmacies to all retail establishments and food establishments in the city and county of san francisco, an. supervisor avalos: this was extended to allow for outreach to the community. our office had done significant outreach on this issue. i want to thank my staff for having reached out to dozens of merchants and 15 organizations that work within the district. i also want to thank the department of the environment to help to sponsor a public meeting where we discussed this matter with dozens of attendees. as we did do a lot of outreach, all of us agree that we need to do more, regardless of the outcome of today's vote.

to continue that outreach, i have proposed an additional amendment to this legislation to conduct outreach to stores and provide multilingual information to employees and customers to distribute recyclable, composed of all, or reusable bags. i have circulated that amendment, as well as a second amendment the addresses a second concern raised in my district, particularly chinatown and elsewhere, on using plastic bags for delicate and larger items. specifying that the bags that were required for those would not be covered under this ordinance. with that, i would like to make a motion to amend those items. supervisor chiu: is there a second? second to the motion, supervisor mar. to the amendment?

no. seeing no comment on the amendment, can we have a roll call on the amendment? >> rol[roll-call vote] there are 10 ayes. supervisor chiu: to the item as amended, i would like to call up the director of the department of the environment to talk about some of the issues that we discovered over the last couple of months, as we worked our way through the legislative process. my first question is around the question of outreach. you heard loud and clear from the board that we all wanted more outreach, particularly

several months ago. can you talk about the efforts that your office has been involved in to make sure that we are reaching out to understand people's concerns? >> absolutely. i am pleased to be back here to report on the educational activities that have taken place for the plastic check out bag? and legislation before you today. first, i would like to thank the supervisor for taking the lead on this legislation that will benefit the environment and help to sustain and the environment. i would also like to thank the leadership of supervisors chiu and wiener to address the issues we heard from the community over the past couple of months. as you are aware, when this legislation was continued last fall, you call upon the department of the environment to conduct more outreach for diversity in the city. we answered that col.

since early december, we have conducted a robust outreach effort that is unprecedented for any pending legislation. we invested staff time and resources to make sure that the proper work was done. i wanted to take a moment to detail those activities. they have included one-on-one outreach. you can get merchant organizations. my staff reached out to be supervisor to get input on which neighborhood associations you would like to ensure were reached in your community. we also worked with the mayor's staff on his recommendations as well. on starting the outreach through the list of priority organizations, we were happy to join the supervisor for a forum

in chinatown that he and his staff co-sponsored. we were also happy to present on the proposed legislation. we presented at the small business commission hearing, the value mission association and south of market association. in total, we reached out to 35 key merchant organizations across the city and all districts, using e-mail and phone. we heard back from 23 of these organizations after multiple attempts. the second tactic that we employed was merchant walks. in addition to the one on one outreach in key leadership organizations in the district, we activated our environment now outreach teams. our team is right back there. hello. it is the department of the

environment's green job training program. we currently have 19 staff in our two year program learning soft and hard skills for the outreach in our environmental programs. they do everything from energy efficiency for small businesses to recycling and cart monitoring in the neighborhoods, and door- to-door canvassing for home retrofit programs. i wanted to take one moment to talk more about the great work they have done. since october of 2009, staff has been canvassing the city and has had conversations with over 25,000 residents of san francisco and had over 7000 conversations with city businesses on a wide range of environmental issues. 7000 residents have been through this program, learning skills to been -- to build green urban

forest sectors. their existing responsibilities were suspended for four days to be trained on the back ban issue. -- bag ban issue. we have staff on the team that speaks spanish, cantonese, mandarin, and [unintelligible] and were essential to reaching a diverse group of local businesses. each person explain to the representative on duty, and any merchants that have further questions or concerns were noted and followed up with by a program staff person from the department. fliers in different languages were left behind and included the department of the environment's phone number to call for more information. these fires have been translated into spanish and chinese. overall, 11 districts were covered, talking with 901 businesses. to give you a sense of what we

heard, here are three quotes from march's it -- from merchants who spoke to our staff. in district for a merchant said that he was happy for this extended legislation. for once, the city is doing good. mark from the liver decaffeinate told us that it was about time. "we stop using plastic bags a long time ago, and our paper bags are 100% recyclable." amy said "i am really excited that we are going forward with this, as i am committed to sustainability within small- business." we are poised and ready to conduct a multilingual outreach campaign to merchants and consumers throughout san francisco over the next several -- seven months. it is being codified within the amendment and will contain back

tears for merchants to connect with suppliers, as well as a bag giveaway program. although the final details are still being worked out, the department of the environment has set aside $20,000 to help those in need, as well as the community at large. we have received interest from a couple of corporate sponsors. the time has come for san francisco to catch up. there is great promise to reduce the amount of a single use bags in the bay and streets. you will have the chance to regain leadership roles in the issue, making sure that san francisco continues to lead the way. thank you for the question, thank you for the opportunity to address you on this legislation. we are here to answer any