that ethics has adopted with the two changes in front of you, reducing the overall cap of the amount in the election campaign fund, from $13.5 million to $7 million. the purpose of this is to escalate concerns and there has always been a surplus and that money is idle when the city could be using that money in other places. this is certainly acceptable to the staff. the second change is the ethics commission adopted an increase in the cap for the mayoral race , and the board had decided to leave that where it is. this is something that's that is fine with working with. there is a third technical change that recreates the formula at which the commission staff wants to notify the board and the mayor there will be a shortage in the fund. because of the way it is

written, there will not be a shortage when the trigger hits, we are changing the trigger so that it matches the mathematical intent. that is really it in a nutshell. you have before you what you already adopted with those two changes, which are simple to understand, and those are the technical changes. >> could you describe, procedurally, what happens if we adopt this, these changes in the legislation? >> the rules committee, likely will hear this on april 5 -- >> possibly late march. >> at that point, it goes back to the full board come first and second full of reading. our understanding is there is sufficient support that this would be adopted with the changes. >> we have sufficient

confidence -- if we do not vote on the version that was sent to us by the board originally, but instead, vote on this version that was negotiated over the course of the last week, we are not running into any procedural problems? >> no, if the commission were to adopt these last set of changes the director just presented -- and these were last minute changes -- there should not be any holdup in terms of how quickly it could be enacted at the board and how quickly the ethics commission could implement. >> procedurally, we are also ok with this regarding the version that had originally reidy that had originally come down from the board. >> certainly within the ethics commission purvey to make any changes that you see fit,

frankly. even if it is something that several members of the board at least initially expressed support for. although, that seems to have changed a little bit. >> so your review is that this was satisfactorily noticed that we reluctant changes to what was done, that there were visions to that and the public was on notice that we were addressing this topic in this level of detail today? that is another procedural issue. >> yes, in terms of noticing this item on the agenda for the special meeting, the notice is sufficient. the ethics committee can also make changes and still pass it out the same day, or evening, as it usually is.

>> thank you. commissioners, comments regarding the proposal? >> briefly, on the $7 million, can you tell us more about what the staff thinking was when you came to the conclusion that that was adequate? >> the most we have ever spent in a single race is the past mayoral race, $4.8 million. that is too close to $5 million for what we are thinking about next. in projecting forward the anticipated inflationary costs and everything, we wanted to make sure there was enough money looking for to at least the next

mayor's race. we costed it out and just under $7 million. we started at $5 million, but there was concern that that would not be enough, so we recalculated and moved up in that way. >> a question about the conforming changes in the last paragraph. previously, the trigger was much further away from the cap, giving more time to find money in the budget, if necessary, make other changes that would allow that to work. i am just wondering what the thinking is about having the cap at $6.9 million, which seems pretty close and not allowing as much policy room. i know this does not speak to timing. what is the background on that one? >> i was not in the room when

this figure was arrived at, actually. the fact is, even though this stipulates a time when we are to go in the case of a supplemental, there is nothing constraining us -- >> from doing it early. so it is required at this point, but could be done at any time when we believe it is proven in the cycle. >> yes. -- prudent in the cycle of. >> commissioners, any other questions or comments? >> if i could just add a lot more on the question presented by commissioner studley. the ethics committee needs a signal prior to the election. the possibility that a commission may request a supplemental appropriation is permissive.

if that extension was close, $6.7 million, for example, we would still be required to notify the board of that, but it is not clear that the ethics commission needs to go through all the groups to ask for that money -- hoops to ask for that money. >> in the words, it is possible there may not be $7 million in the fund, but at the extent not have the obligation necessarily to ensure that there is $7 million. >> the ethics commission would be required to notify the relevant authorities but is not required to actually go through the steps of requesting that money. it is not practically required. >> is there any mechanism for the board or mayor to put money in the fun without a request from ethics? >> yes. >> it is in their budgetary

authority. >> further questions or comments from the commissioners? public comment? >> good morning. i have not seen this before. i walked in the room and you were talking about it. mr. hill said he was vaguely aware. would have been helpful if this was available yesterday, to let the public know. i am not sure i can digest the changes right now. i think that is a problem in terms of public notice and consideration of further changes to what was already a complicated proposal. i was prepared to talk about what was made available in earlier this week. i am sorry. i am a little bit unhappy right now. >> at the beginning of the meeting, we addressed these changes and the procedural mechanism for how they came

about. perhaps you can provide another recap -- >> perhaps staff could have let the public know that this document was available yesterday? >> the document was written last night after 6:00 p.m. >> and we are considering in this morning? >> this proposal was with the ethics commission adopted before with two changes that are simple to understand and one technical correction. >> the negotiations continued into evening last night, and this was prepared immediately after those. >> we sought for the first time this morning as well. >> i will try to restrain my unhappiness, but i expressed it. the technical changes that i had here on what is now paid 18 subsection b, with respect to

insufficient funds, in addition to notify the commission and the board of supervisors, i would suggest adding the mayor on line six, line 16, 17. to the extent this suggests a supplemental appropriation that could originate from the border or the mayor, or as suggested by this commission. i think notify the commission, board, and mayor would be useful. i have no policy objection to the changes in the program structure. as i have testified before, i would use different figures, but i think these figures work as well. this is an evolving program. it is possible there could be a future court decision that says a non-incumbent candidate cannot be treated differently.

we may have to go back and revise the formula to that end. to my knowledge, there is no such decision in that regard right now. i think it is fine to handle incumbent, non-incumbent candidates in the manner proposed. whether or not my concern about the single subject rule is still pertinent, i still think, on a policy basis, moving back the filing deadline 58 days has the effect of extending the campaign season for two months, which i actually think works against one of the goals of the commission with respect to financing of campaigns, which is to limit the expenses. by extending the campaign season, that will increase expenses of running for office, not keep them level, which i think is not a good idea.

why candidates should have to file in june 4 in november election rather than august seems to me there are other approaches to deal with the zombie candidate issue, or reducing the number of candidates -- limiting the number of candidates that may seek public financing under a reasonably separate -- structured program. i will leave my comments there for the moment. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. steven hill. it has been a long road. yesterday was a pretty furious day. lots of people were involved trying to tweak anything at the last second. it was not an attempt to hide anything from the public. there were just a lot of concern from members of the board that we are doing the right thing here. as someone who has come here

before, an advocate for public financing, i am not 100% happy with everything in this, but, on balance, it is a good effort. the standard that you are charged, to look at changes like this, does this further the goals of the campaign finance reform ordinance? that is what any changes meant to do. looking at it that way, this document does that. it does a number of good things, including dealing with the zombie candidate issue, and will make the program itself more stable because it is making us more conscious of the use of public dollars. it is going to make sure there is enough money in the fund, we hope, to finance all the candidates based on past elections, but it is also going to make it a love it harder to get the public financing, as we

know. on balance, we have struck a good package here. i would urge you to support it. we know we need a boat from the board of supervisors. that is a high threshold. when you need at high of the threshold, sometimes everybody can get what they want. the major substantive change that was made yesterday is a very good one, after all the back-and-forth. the amendment that came to you was going to put money into the fund in june, in the middle of campaign season. that would have allowed the program to become a political football. that would have used up a big lump sum, instead of doing it year after year. those of us that have been around this issue for a long time remember in the past

mayoral administration where they raided the fund and turned it into a political football. this was alarming to thing that money would be injected into the fund in the middle of a campaign, in june. i am pleased we were able to get agreement to go back to the year to year allocation, and to keep it that way, where it has already been. and it is also true the ethics commission itself is overseeing this program, which is funded by that. the lower that amount gets, the less funding the ethics commission has. if you are getting in a lump sum, i imagine it allows more difficulty in planning for staffing and all the other needs of the commission. doing it year by year seems to be a better way to do the sorts of things, to allow the commission and staff to plan, knowing that the money is coming each year and plan accordingly. not everything i wanted, but on

balance, it furthers the goal of the cfro, and i would urge your support. >> commissioners, any further comments, questions? is there a motion? --is there a motion to pass the provisions to the cfro? is there a second? >> second. >> all those in favor? opposed? the motion passes. >> that being the only item on the agenda, the meeting is adjourned.

>> good afternoon petraeus i am hearing to present -- i was told over the weekend, no, i would go present and entered as the person who will be receiving the award this year. i said, when is that coming at the lunch? the end, the grand finale? she said, no, it is the first award. i said, isn't this the international women's day and we're giving a man the first award? she said, oh, they have to go back to work. i said, we have heard that before. so the man of the year. when we think about who the right person should be and is deserving of such an honor,

believe me, we're not looking for a man who is in high political office or the ceo of the major companies. instead, we're looking for someone who has demonstrated over time that he is committed to advancing equal rights and opportunities for women and minorities, someone who has talked the talk and walked the walk. i know we have a number of guests from other countries at this year's women's summit. and at many levels. and it is universal. we're talking about advice for education. jobs and economic opportunities. and in the political arena. when i first became active in this community, thanks again to many of my friends who are in this room who are my inspiration and give me all the encouragement that i have had, i have come to learn that we must have a place at the table. that is what was referenced

issue today. this should be the theme this year, to be at the table. we're talking about in the corporate world, the board room, the state legislature, the halls of congress, or at city hall. well, i am very proud of the recipient of this year is a man of the year award, our mayor, mayor at least pujols -- mayor ed lee. [applause] the mayor is the chosen one. not because you have the title of being the mayor. the mayor was the chosen one because over the last 30 years, he has a history of promoting justice and advancing equal rights and opportunities for women and minorities in the city

and beyond. when he graduated from law school across the bay, and instead of adding to a corporate law office, he decided to work for the asian law caucus, fighting against discrimination, against women and minorities. when he became the first asian- american to be in that position in this great city, again -- that was less than three months ago that when the mayor was sworn billion, he took every opportunity he had to advance women. when there is an opportunity to appoint a member to the board of supervisors, and for those of you who do not live in san francisco, that is our city council. among the list of qualified candidates, he elected christina olague . i believe supervisor olague is with us today. [applause] and in a short three months when

he has had an opportunity to nominate and appoint somebody to the very important position which he firmly held as the chief administration officer of the city and county of san francisco, and again he immediately nominated noami kelly to be our cao. [applause] we're living in a city that we're very lucky, and we know that women around the world and in many other cities are not as lucky. when i look around their room, i see that we have many city departments headed by women. of course there can always be more. but i see melanie, miriam, emily. i mean, there are quite a few and we're very proud. i am looking at the next four to eight years, and i can see there will be more and more women leaders in our city government. so we're very fortunate to have somebody at the top of the city

that really believes in making room for women at the table. now i would like to invite the one and only surely bell to join me in presenting this award, and please join me in representing the man of the year, mayor ed lee. [applause] >> wow, thank you, claudine and shelly. thank you for this distinguished meant. very much appreciated. i am is sitting here listening

to the introductory remarks, and i have flashbacks of decisions that made in the past. but if it begins with i think having different attitude because i had a strong mom who had to raise kids by herself and understanding how single mothers have to survive and raise a whole family gives you life lessons. i also need toothache -- to thank anita because she appointed me her husband. so i have to return the favor. [applause] but you know, i can go on about a lot of things we have done, but i am more excited to signal to all of you to really work hard with us. there is just a lot more to do. because there will be efforts that tried to hold us back as a

society, but then we have to continue moving forward. we cannot let the the kind of radio talk-show hosts and things like that hold us back. i, too, have to express my personal shock and just in this day and age how such a vicious language can be used that when someone is invited to present their expertise as a law student about the needs of women, and it has been such almost spoiled, i guess, to be in san francisco, because this is often our culture, to listen and to follow-up with the articulation from advocates, from people who have served in all kinds of government and business, educational institutions, the private sector, the public sector, to listen carefully to the needs that our children, our young girls and our women in need to not only survive but to go well beyond that and succeed

in society. i am often reminded who holds half of the sky up in the city. so i am going to continue inviting all of you, particularly speaking to the women here who do have experience and knowledge and foresight to advise me and advise my administration of how we can do better in all aspects. nationally, locally, and internationally to keep advocating strongly how we can protect and nurture and how we can make sure that our society is of equalness. that is why i said at the beginning that the flashbacks of being at the dpw and human rights commission, recalling the advocates the came to meet with me and said how important it it is for a city to sign on to united nations convention to eliminate all forms of

discrimination -- [cheers and applause] that is still important. and then a decade later, to realize we're still one of the only cities to have done that. how can we still be alone in this effort? realizing we have got a lot more work to do. and to say to you that if you do not continue advocating, if we do not have opportunities for you to speak out enough for us to listen and to absorb and to integrate into our policies, then you are god have voices of their that suggest -- then you're going to have voices out there that suggest that the issues you bring out are private matters. that cannot be accepted in a city like san fran. -- like san francisco. [applause] i join

recognizing international women's day. i personally thank you for this award and recognition. but i also want to make sure you're challenged and you are invited and you are encouraged to advocate with them and to this administration, because we will listen and we will act on it those things to make sure that we're more of an equal society and that we can provide perhaps leadership to other areas of the country that have yet to catch up. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to make a presentation that all the honorees are going to get today. it is from an incredible artists, wanda whitacre, who was over in the corner. she has done a series of portraits murals of each of our honorees, and it is are a gift to you for all that you have done. >> wow.

>> so we present to you the ed lee mural. [applause] >> well, thank you, ms. what occurred -- whitacre. i read your bio, so i understand you have other skills i might need like hypno-

>supervisor kim: good morning. welcome to the tpja meeting of march 8. go ahead and call roll. >> you do have a quorum. item number three, communications. i am not aware of any. item number four, board of directors new and old business.