agenda items? that is my concern. supervisors, whether we like it or not, we need to have an independent body where people do not take instructions from outside. right now, we have very corrupt politicians. let me repeat, very, very corrupt politicians. and i come from a federal agency. i even worked for law enforcement. we know these people. and they influenced every level in this city and county of san francisco. some of you are influenced by a politician. he can make one call and you will just do as he says. some of you will not. but some of you will. and so, supervisors, look at an independent agency to do the right thing. thank you very much.

>> good afternoon. i want to speak to you as a journalist. particularly in the paragraph u, regarding internet advertisements. i think the language needs more precision in terms of who can and cannot pay. also, i think we need some assurances that journalists and others who write paid blogs for the likes of salon.com and politico.com, will not be considered in violation of paid advertisements. i have proposed some new language for this. it is a bit longer, but a bit more precise. and it is not necessarily perfect, but i think it can be a starting point for revising the

language of u language. it contains it"nothing in this section is intended to discourage the use of the and that four persons for whom such communications are a regular source of income." i plan to get with my union on this. you may be hearing from the union or not. i want to leave you with this thought. these amendments would appear to reduce transparency in the political process. each of you could be affected by that. each of you may at some point be frustrated by the reduction in transparency. do you want to assure yourself in the foot on that? -- to shoot yourself in the foot on that? >> hello again. i just wanted to agree with supervisor campos and some other

speakers. in light of the supreme court throwing out contribution limits from all kinds of wealth the entities, this is not the time to reduce transparency. it is not the time to reduce disclosure. also, i had an idea about the staffing of the ethics commission. supervisors have volunteers on their staff. i wondered if there was a way to get volunteers in there to help with some of the work. such as, perhaps, from six classes, if there are any left in high school. something like that. that is a suggestion. i have another suggestion. perhaps he might like to request a comparison of san francisco and l.a. public financing systems with portland, ore., which did have full public financing until the supreme court threw out the fair fight

funds part of it. however, i am not sure if -- how portland compares in size to san francisco. for some years, they have had actual voter-owned elections. you might want to look at that. a few years ago, the ethics commission or someone was going to look into public financing for san francisco. i never heard what happened with that. >> thank you. i neglected to give you three letters that i was asked to provide from people who could not be here today. one is from the vernal heights democratic club. one is from commissioner maufas on the board of education. another one is from gabriel holland. supervisor wiener: are there any

other members of the public who wish to speak in public comment? seeing none, can we close public comment? as i indicated at the beginning, i appreciate all the public comment today. i do not necessarily agree with every characterization that has been made today, but i am not going to go through point by point and express where i agree or disagree. we are going to send this back to the ethics commission for further discussion to make sure that we are furthering our shared goal of transparency and disclosure. while also doing what we can to improve the process to the extent possible. members of the committee, i would request that the committee continue this with a request to the ethics commission to take up the matter for further deliberation. supervisor campos: thank you.

i want to thank all of the members of the public who has come -- who have come out to speak on this item. i also want the bank, in advance, the ethics commission and their staff for taking these items into further consideration. i also want to take the opportunity to thank the city attorney's office. they do good work on these issues and their expertise is always greatly appreciated. i really believe that we have a real opportunity here, in san francisco, to make sure that we talk notwithstanding the context of what the supreme court has decided, that we become a model for how a city can have the most transparent and accountable to read possible. i believe that all this in this room are committed to making that happen -- all of us in this

room are committed to making that happen and i am excited about the possibility, i look forward to working with supervisor wiener in making sure we do get to that point. and i do not think that the intent is different. there are different perhaps ways of getting to that objective. i will make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair and request respectfully the ethics commission consider these items. the one thing i would add to that for the ethics commission is i hope that it is not just one meeting or is a technical effort to provide outreach to do a public hearing. it is a meaningful and robust process. the more people are engaged in these issues, the better it is. i know that to the extent that anyone of us whether it is in my

office or supervisor wiener's office need to be part of that, to help with that. the last thing i will say is i want to take an opportunity to help landeta who is an intern in my office from the goldman public policy school and uc- berkeley who has done an amazing job in sort of jumping into these issues and understanding the implications of some of the proposals and grappling with the complexity of it. i make that motion to move this item to continue this item to the call of the chair. supervisor campos: thank you. we do have a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. i want to thank supervisor wiener and supervisor avalos. i do appreciate we will be giving additional time to referring it to the ethics commission to give it greater community outreach and input.

i want to acknowledge the concern about how we do outrage. -- outreach. it is hard to sometimes get folks and i completely get that. if we get a schedule of hearings, my office is happy to do outreach. the ethics commission does have elected funding and staffing to do that sort of average -- outrage -- outreach. i had four on my campaign who were attorneys and we would still make complaints -- mistakes. we all want to comply with ethics laws. sometimes you have to pay for those services but i do agree with the rates and the spending cap. there is clearly some room for us to be able to make those expenditures.

i do think that came from a good place. i do not think that came from my way to skirt our spending limitations but i look forward to continuing to work with both offices. there are a number of issues that were brought up by the members of the public and it was good to hear. the potential impact -- that might be made. supervisor wiener: thank you. i will reverse what i said about not disputing. i want to comment on the compliance cost issue. it will be moved because it is no longer necessary given the increased cap. there has been in recent days and to extend at this hearing. there are some good faith disagreements. there has been a bit of hyperbole. one of them is about the compliance costs. of course, every campaign in the world would love to have that superstar volunteer treasurer

who is so good at keeping books and reports and understand a lot including the many, many, many reports that are required to be followed -- file that will have full disclosure and do it in a way that will not give you in trouble and fined. everyone would love to have that person and i have been on a campaign tour you have some volunteer who is a retired accountant who knows what they're doing and is a phenomenal job. a lot of campaigns whether you are the wealthiest campaign in the world -- many do not have access to that person. you have a choice of having a volunteer who may have a volunteer who may be there at some points but other -- not at other times, who may make a good-faith mistakes. or hiring someone.

i do not like the cost of hiring. especially for a link the race. it is not cheap and it can accumulate. someone commented adding the 14 dozen dollars would have added to the cap would have somehow increased the cap. that would have increased under the old scheme to $157,000, compared that to the increase of $250,000 that the sport red -- enacted. the criticism of the cost provision we will move, that criticism was not warranted. at least in the supervisor races. it did make sense under the lower cap. i want to make those comments because sometimes people assume you are trying to do something nefarious one that is not at all the case.

thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. thank you to members of the public. this is a link the hearing so we appreciate you sticking around. supervisor campos: i have a concern about that specific provision but i do not think there was anything nefarious about the intent. supervisor kim said it was coming from that good place. i do not agree that there was ill intent in any of that. supervisor kim: wheat -- we do have a motion to continue this to the call of the chair and we can do that without opposition. thank you. madam clerk, could you please call items a310? >> >> would you like to entertain a motion to move into

closed session regarding a310 on existing litigation -- 8 through 10 on existing litigation? supervisor kim: is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we can do that without opposition. we're now convening in closed session. we ask members of >> we met in closed session to discuss what does -- litigation. supervisor campos: we have made this motion to move it forward with recommendation. supervisor kim: we can do that

without opposition. are there any other announcements? >> no. supervisor kim: meeting is adjourned. >> the right to vote allows us

to vote for candidates or party and it is a significant way to have our voice heard. exactly 100 years ago, women were given the vote in california. the battle for women's suffrage was not an easy one. it took more than 70 years. a woman could run for president in new york. >> organizing this conference, basically it modeled itself on a declaration of independence for women. it marked the beginning of the women's equality movement in the united states.

>> at that time, women were banned from holding property and voting in elections. >> susan b. anthony dedicated her life to reform. >> suffrage in the middle of the 19th century accomplished one goal, it was diametrically opposed to this idea. >> many feared it would be corrupted by politics. >> women in the 19th century had to convince male voters that having the vote would not change anything. that woman would still be devoted to the home, the family, that they would remain pure and

innocent, that having the vote would not corrupt them. >> support gradually grew in state and local campaigns. >> leaders like ellen clark sgt come repeatedly stopping these meetings -- , repeatedly stopping these meetings as a politically active figure. doing everything they could to ground the campaign in domesticity. >> despite their efforts, the link made it tough whenever voters were in the big city. a specialist in francisco. >> the problem with san francisco is that women's suffrage as an idea was

associated. >> susan b. anthony joined the provision party. a deadly idea in san francisco. liquor was the foundation of the economy. and >> anything that touched on the possibility of prohibition was greatly and popular. >> the first campaign was a great effort, but not a success. >> the war was not over. less than one decade later, a graphic protests brought new life to the movement. >> women's suffrage, the republican convention in oakland, this time it was the

private sector response. 300 marched down the streets of the convention center. women were entitled to be here. >> joining together for another campaign. >> women opened a club in san francisco. it was called the votes for women club. if she could get the shopkeepers to have lunch, she could get them to be heard literature. the lunch room was a tremendous success. >> it was the way that people thought about women willing to fight for a successful campaign.

what happened was, the social transformation increase the boundary of what was possible, out word. >> there were parades and rallies, door to door candidacies, reaching every voter in the state. >> the eyes of the nation were on california in 1911, when we all voted. it was the sixth and largest state in the nation to approve this. one decade later, we have full voting rights in the united states. helping newly enfranchised women, a new political movement was founded. >> starting in the 1920's, it was a movement created by the

suffragettes moving forward to getting the right to vote. all of the suffragettes were interested in educating the new voters. >> non-partisan, not endorsing candidates >> -- endorsing candidates, getting the right to vote and one they have their voice heard. >> the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage is taking place throughout the state. bancroft library is having an exhibit that highlights the women's suffrage movement, chronicling what happened in california, bringing women the right to vote. >> how long does this mean going

on? >> the week of the 20th. people do not realize that women were allowed to vote as early as the 1920's. in the library collection we have a manuscript from the end of december, possibly longer. >> in commemoration of 100 years of voting in california. 100 years ago this year, we won the right to vote. around 1911, this is how it would have addressed. and here we are, dressed the same.

[chanting] >> we have the right to vote. >> whether you are marching for a cause or voting in the next election, make your voice heard. thank you for watching.

>> this is a special meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday, june 7, 2012. let rame