professional career to providing health care services to vulnerable population in san francisco. supervisor kim: thank you. i could you please speak to what you are proud of having worked on on your term and what you continue to make your priority? >> we have been working very diligently on getting ready for health care reform and providing health care services over the last year to people in the category of seniors and persons with disabilities, and developing health care access for the bomber will patient populations in san francisco. -- for the vulnerable patient populations in san francisco. supervisor kim: thank you for being here. i know mr. gressman could not

attend today's meeting, but we do have mr. north dakota -- mr. eddie chan here. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the current president and ceo of ne medical services, a federally qualified health services center, one of the largest in san francisco, currently taking care of about 50,000 unique patients, of which we have about 32% of the healthy san francisco population. some of the things i have been proud of working on the board, having access, the ability to improve our customer service, and definitely preparing ourselves for 2014 when we had a huge expansion in medical. supervisor kim: great. i know you also have been serving on the health authority as well, and we talked briefly about what you think the

authority should be focusing on, which i think is huge, the changes coming down the pipe line. >> those of the three things i have probably been working on. we're never quite there yet. the next few years, those will be paramount because of the increased population of patients we will need to cover with our medical population. supervisor kim: what are some of the key things you hope to work on in the next two years through the health authority? >> the coordination of care across all the various partnership groups we have within the health of 40. supervisor kim: thank you very much. next we have david woods. >> good afternoon. my name is david woods, and i am chief emergency officer for the

san francisco department of public health. my experience is about over 20 years as a pharmacist working in san francisco almost entirely throughout my career. i have large hospital experience, small hospital experience, experience with formulary management for the community health network in san francisco. i also have seven years long- term care experience in my time at laguna honda hospital. most recently, i have been working on a number of things where i have oversight of the public hospitals -- san francisco general, laguna honda, public health allocation system where we manage the prescription drug benefits for the healthy san francisco program, for the s.f. path program, and for the workers as well, the 50,000 members we manage drug prescriptions for. my interest in the position is that i strongly support the ethic of providing high-quality

health care to low-income members of san francisco. i think universal coverage, high-quality care, and access to care are important components that i share along with the health plan. areas that fit where i think i can help in be of use are in cases where the city and county of san francisco is the largest provider of the san francisco health plan network, said there is a symbiosis there between us and them. san francisco health plan is the third-party administrator. i think the innovation and collaboration that we can work together to provide better health care for the patients that we serve. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. i see no questions from our committee, but thank you for applying. i know this is a new seat for you, so we appreciate your application. thank you. at this time, we will open up for public comment on this item.

>> if you paid attention, each of the candidates that came before you -- each of the candidates that came before you needed a residency waiver, okay? now, this is what i am is saying. we have a population in san francisco of about 800,000 -- some say 811,000. we should encourage san franciscans to take this position. recently, i attended a task force, a health task force -- espanola jackson and some of the others were there. i believe it was initiated by one of the supervisors who spoke very eloquently at that task force. what i am is saying is san franciscans -- this is a $1

billion-plus type of operation -- talking about san francisco general hospital. we need san franciscans to be a stakeholder. we also appreciate the hard work of tom ammiano. it got a lot of static, but the whole nation is looking at those type of programs. but again, supervisors, be fair, okay? i can understand one or two of the candidates having residency waivers. we need san franciscans to step up. just like earlier the students step up. we need san franciscans to step up to be stakeholders so that they participate in the deliberation of quality of life issues, and one of them that is very, very important is held --

health. thank you very much. supervisor kim: any other public comments on this item? >> good afternoon, rules committee members. i would echo the sentiments of the previous speaker. i am struck by the tremendous experience that the previous applicants have spoken to. it is very impressive, and clearly, they all have tremendous commitment to the city of san francisco. however, i would love to see our seats on these bodies come from san francisco. i am share great outrage has been done to try to find great people in san francisco, but i would always encourage more outreach, more thought, more community-wide stretching to ensure that we can have community representatives who are so committed to san francisco that they figure out a way to live in this very expensive city as well as work here. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you, ms.

hanson. >> i would have to get good the statements of the two previous speakers. and passionately -- as passionately as mr. da costa spoke about san franciscans, really, after watching the videotape of the rules committee in regards to the sunshine ordinance task force when we are talking about diversity, as a san franciscan, i cannot -- i cannot condone this behavior and gentrification of all of these waivers for people who do not live here. i mean, if you are spending a billion dollars on general hospital, that is a lot of people. there should be veterans of in here. there should be people from the community within the mission district, bayview, hunters point, visitation valley.

i do not condone -- i do not condone these fee waivers for people who do not live here in san francisco who are involved in making policies that affect san franciscans. this is unacceptable, and you yourself are always talking about diversity. this motion needs to be continued. supervisor kim: thank you. was there any other public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is now close. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you. let me once again begin by thanking the applicants. i appreciate anytime someone wants to serve in any capacity. as was noted by one of the speakers, my office has spent a lot of time on the issue of health care, and i am imprest with all the qualifications of each applicant. i think they have a lot to offer, and i do believe there are times when residency waivers

are appropriate. that said, i do have a concern about the entirety of the applications requiring residency waivers. my implication, -- - danny, unless i'm tilt -- my understanding is the individual serving in the six continue to serve in that capacity. in light of that, i think it would be appropriate for us to continue the item to provide an opportunity for current residents of the city to apply for any of these seats. again, this is not about the individual qualifications of any of the people who are before us. each of them is exceptional and has a lot to offer, but i do think that on something like health, it is important to have the perspective of someone who not only works in the city but actually lives in the city. these individuals -- not to say

that these individuals do not have the insight that can be helpful, but i think that as a matter of policy, it would make sense for us to give san franciscans an opportunity to apply. it may be that there are no other applications. i do not know what would be inappropriate time. i do not know if a month is sufficient, but i would continue this to the call of the chair. so that we have enough time provided and then bring it back -- expeditiously, of course -- once the opportunity has been given. my motion is to continue this to the call of the chair. again, without meaning any disrespect to the individual applicants. supervisor farrell: i echo the comments. the applicants here were terrific. we are lucky to have you applied. i have been one who has been outspoken in the past about making sure we have san francisco residents on these commissions, but i appreciate the sentiment and will have listened with the motion.

supervisor kim: we have a motion to continue. my apologies, i wish i had thought this earlier. i only got this this morning that all four required residency waivers. my apologies for that. it was something that did strike me when i saw the agenda today. looking beyond the applications, and it was going to be my request that we get more nominations, which is something that we just did recently to ensure that we do have more resonance serving. on an issue such as public health, it is essential that we have people who live here in sentences of. it is not to say that we will not appoint non-residence. in some cases, we have to, given the current expertise and the lack of residents that may be able to fulfill those needs. personally, i know the work of a couple of the applicants and i know that you do incredible work on behalf of san francisco communities, but i think in fairness, we should continue these seats.

i am happy to get it about a month and more than happy to work with the health authority to enter a greater diversity of applicants that live here in san francisco. we do have that motion, and we can do that without opposition. thank you. madam clerk, can you please call item 5? >> charter amendment to amend the charter of the city to change the election cycle for the offices of city attorney and treasurer so these offices will be elected in the same years as the elections for the offices of mayor, a district attorney, and sheriff, and to amend the definition of general municipal elections other such elections occur only in even-numbered years and every other odd- numbered year. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. this charter amendment would consolidate the city attorney treasurer election with the mayoral, sheriff, d.a.

elections. we elect those with those of the only offices on the ballot, sometimes with additional ballot measures, of course. it is historically a low turnout election. i was reading coverage of tuesday's election, which was a quite terrible turn out. this would consolidate with the mayoral election, would encourage a larger turnout in electing our city attorney and treasurer. it would also -- every four years, with the election does not occur, it would save a little over $4 million, it averages out at $1 million a year. we save money, get a higher turnout, higher participation for these two offices. and i think that is it.

supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor campos. supervisor wiener: i am site, but just to be clear, this has been in committee before, but i do not want to assume everybody remembers everything. next year's election would proceed as normal and again in 2015, the synchronization would occur at that point. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank supervisors wiener for introducing this charter amendment. i actually introduced something identical as part of a different charter amendment. i think it makes sense to do this charter amendment as a way of saving the city money. i think that we want to make sure that we did everything we can to get as many voters out to vote and consolidating elections were a breed is one way we can do that. i support the concept and thank the supervisor for his work. supervisor kim: thank you.

at this time, we will open up for public comment on item five. seeing none, public comment is the chief -- public comment is -- >> i disagree. unless you could actually show me how it would increase voter participation. i think if nothing else, you would confuse voters, with putting all of these people who have high positions in the city on the same ballot. it is bad enough that the democratic process is flawed and that people are not able to see what the sequoia and machines are doing. now, the city family wants to do everything simultaneously and say, "thank you for showing up and we all 1 the same election." no, i think there was a reason why it was put into the city

charter the way it is. as they say, if it ain't broke, do not fix it. supervisor kim: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i know this item has already been hurt by this committee. it will be continued to later dates we can have the charter amendment to ballot for the november election when we have a greater turnout, and i appreciate supervisor wiener of holding off on that because we know we have notoriously low turnout for the june election, and ideas of what we have voters weigh in what i disagree is turnout possible and we have a presidential election this november, some members of the public will have an opportunity now to weigh in on this item on the november ballot. this simply puts this charter a minute on the ballot. i support this, and i think it is important for us to consolidate the elections. i think we will see a greater turnout, and frankly, kind, on

these of years, we have very low turnout. i think it is important that we consolidate, if we can, and of course, there's a great cost to every election cycle we run, and also, election fatigue that many candidate organizes experience. i want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing this forward. supervisor farrell: in a similar vein, i wholeheartedly support this amendment and i think it should have been done a long time ago. i am happy to be supportive of that. >> we have a recommendation to move forward with positive recommendation, and we can do that without opposition. thank you. madam clerk, could you please call item 6? >> item 6, hearing on the efficacy of the campaign finance reform ordinance and the ethics commission's enforcement of the law.

supervisor kim: my apologies. supervisor campos dataquest this hearing. campos -- did request this hearing. campos thank you. i requested -- supervisor campos: thank you, madam chair. i requested this hearing a few weeks ago in response to a number of items that have come before the different committees of the board of supervisors, including the government audits and oversight committee, which is a committee that i chaired last year, specifically questions about the performance of the department of ethics, the ethics commission, and i really do not want this hearing to be about necessarily criticizing or bashing one agency. put simply, to do this hearing, the concept that we in san

francisco need to make sure that we have the most effective and efficient set of rules when it comes to governmental ethics that we can and we want to make sure that our system works as well as possible. that is the spirit in which this item was introduced and the spirit in which we -- i hope we have this discussion. it really is about finding out about how we are doing in san francisco government in terms of our enforcement of our ethics laws, and how we are doing in terms of not only how we can do things better, but also how we are doing relative to other jurisdictions that clearly, like san francisco have an interest and obligation in what happens with governmental ethics. to that end, one of the things that we did so that we could have a well-informed discussion

was to ask the budget and legislative analyst to conduct a very brief report and steady that would compare how the city and county of san francisco is doing relative to another large jurisdiction here in california, and that is the city of los angeles. the report by the budget and legislative analyst, which is completed and has been released -- and i see this hearing as the beginning of the discussion, and the hope for me, with respect to this hearing, is that we will hear from the budget and legislative analyst on some of their findings to talk about what we are doing well in san francisco relative to los angeles, where we can perhaps do things better, questions that arise relative to things that we are doing or not doing, and as

we begin this discussion, i would imagine that it would be appropriate for us to combat at a later time to continue to have this discussion. again, it is done in the spirit of making sure we have the most effective system of rules and regulations of around government ethics that we can have. with that, i would like to ask the office of budget and legislative -- oh, and before we do that, i will turn it over to supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you, and thank you for calling the hearing and having the audit. i look forward to the presentation. i just wanted to know -- note that even the item 7 is a separate item, i imagine there could be some interest rates when the two pieces of public comment. i will be making detailed

comments when i introduced items 7, but just so members of the public know, supervisor campos and i have been working closely on added 7, and we will be requesting it be sent back to the ethics commission for further proceedings, and we will provide some thoughts we hope can guide the process, and we hope will continue to be involved -- i know we will continue to work together to build consensus around some appropriate legislation. supervisor campos: if i may, thank you for mentioning that. once we get to items 7, you know, we have been working on this, and we look forward to more work being done. i think it is appropriate for the ethics commission to come back and look at this. the reason why i think it is

important to have this conversation separately, making item 6 a separate and independent discussion is that the focus of item 7 is on specific issues. this is a larger discussion. it is a general question about what we're doing, what we're doing well, and what we can do better. with that, if i may call our budget and legislative analyst. i want to thank mr. rose and his staff for the very quick turnaround on this issue. i want to thank you for quickly and properly and very thoroughly jumping into this issue. with that, i will turn it over to you. >> thank you. i will give a quick summary of our report.

we compared the city and county of san francisco was with those of the city of los angeles, and we focused on four areas. campaign finance, enforcement, and education. lobbying and transparency or disclosure requirements. the city of l.a.as and requirem. i will highlight a few differences where we and the city -- with the city of l.a. has stronger requirements. lobbyists are prevented from making contributions in l.a. entirely. that is not true here, but they are 100% not allowed to make contributions in l.a. contractors are prohibited from

contributing in the city of l.a. for a 12-month period after their conact is signed. here, ita x-month window. that is the commencement of negotiations here, whereas in l.a., it is after the contract is signed. offsetting that, the threshold for the contract amount is $100,000 in l.a. and $50,000 in san francisco. in terms of disclosure, there is more frequent reporting requirements in los angeles, of to the primary election, and in the general election, there are 12 deadlines and reporting requirements. in the city of l.a., -- in the city of l.a. there are four in the city of san francisco for reporting requirements. recently, in the month of april, actually, the city of l.a. increase its contribution limits. two months ago, they were lower than san francisco. now they are higher.

for city council and controller and city attorney's office in l.a., the limit is $3,400. it is $1,500 for the mayor's office. both of those are higher here. that could be interpreted in different ways, of course. one of the ideas that the ethics commission communicated with that they wanted to offset some of the infinite expenditure entities and their contributions by allowing individuals to make higher contributions. reporting requirements are lower in l.a. and they are here. every thousand dollars worth of expenditures have to be reported

within -- i believe it is 24 hours. the threshold or the trigger for reporting requirements by the same entities is $1,000. another l.a., those reports havto include t expenditure into t that gave $100 or more, and there is no comparable requirement in san francisco. a final difference is regarding extensions of credit. if extensions of credit are given for goods or services to a candidate goes to committee, that has to be repaid within 30 days via los angeles. otherwise, it is considered a contribution. in sentences, there's a 180-day or six-month time frame for paying off those extensions of credit. those are some of the key areas where we found the city of l.a. to have stronger provisions

also looked at outcome statistics from the city of l.a.'s ethics commission and compare those to san francisco. the information the report on their web sites -- we do not have a lot of information that differences in their procedures and what goes into accepting a case, for example, for a commission hearing for action, but in terms of the results, the penalties reported were higher on average in the city of los angeles. $7,746. this is from about 2004 through 2010. san francisco's average was $6,080. they also have a much lower dismissal rate. many more cases