i'm generally concerned about granting of the waivers but i think to fill this seat is difficult. it does call for specialized skills and he meets those qualifications and does work in the city that's why we've got the waiver process. my only brief comment it would have been helpful had the waiver request come in sooner perhaps at the time of nomination. i believe the appointment was granted on march 12th so mr. pearlman has sat for 3 meetings? 2 meetings. it would be helpful to get a waiver certainly not before a

nomination is made but it could have been before this body at the last meeting. i support the waiver and would encourage the second that was on the fence there. thank you >> and just for clarification we had originally planned to have this at the last meeting but we had scheduling problems. >> my only comment is that while i think the regulations about conflict of interest are certainly well-taken i also am concerned about putting undue obstacles in the way of san francisco citizens who want to serve. and especially, if it's an area where special expertise is required i think we want to make

it possible to have people participate in the process so i support the nomination and the waiver >> i hear that and i understand it. i guess i'm with all of those waiver requests i struggle with the term necessary. is it necessary to have the city recruit other candidates. sounds like there were other qualified candidates in this case. the seat 3 requirements states it could be any north american city. i guess i think i'm inclined to

vote to allow the waiver or to vote for the waiver because i also recognize if you don't - if we don't grant a waiver in this situation you're saying a small business owner can't participate in something like this and it's clear mr. paper man wouldn't be able to have his business and while categorically eliminating an entire group of hoping people i have concerns. >> agree with that in terms of larger firms the fact that someone else in the firm can appear other commissions to speak on behalf of their project. i don't see the difference in terms of conflict and i'm in

favor of small business owners saga say in participating. i agree with that >> i'll renew my motion of approval. >> all in favor? the motion passes. thank you, mr. pearlman. you've been granted your waiver mr. pearlman >> thank you for our service mr. pearlman. i was going to say i've had a vacation plan for the last year that happened to be in the last three weeks >> next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on internal revenue service regulations to allow signers to

file a completed signature verification form with the commission. >> i'm an i t officer. solar the governor signed a rule saying we can accept pay in a paperless statement. those changes were approved by the board and mayor and went into effect in march. the political form act is to be verified by the filer. the proposed regulations in the memo clarify and fierltz will sign those documents in the

electronic format and staff has proposed because of complying. we have developed a process in exchange the filer would receive a filer id and a secret code. that would be used to verify the signers identity. this is for january the first deadline of the year we're proposing the same rule? san diego. the signature file is faxed into

the office or we could have the signature card notarized. happy to answer any questions. >> any public comment? i guess i'm the public here tonight. i'm in support. it appears that the potential obstacles i saw before committees not do. killed here was having a notary sign s it this would have to mail in a document and would receive the signer id and pin code. in the instance where someone

comes into the office and they're showing on id i assume the staff would not take a photocopy of that. otherwise i think the draft letter to committees was on old letterhead because it still had commissioner lou on here but i think this does the trick. in terms of timing if you adopt this regulation tonight the board would have two months to consider not approving the regulation so i'd prime you, you wouldn't be notifying filers until the end of june they would need to go through this process fairly quickly in june or july

so they could submit their semiannual at the end of july. how many potential filers are in that universe that would need to complete this process in order to submit their filing by the end of july? is that a manageable review and train during that relatively short time period? anyway, i assume in terms of the signature verification it would be treasurers and it would be a poom pool of people. anyway, i'm wondering what those numbers would be. i think this is good and steven is doing a wonderful job for the

commission >> as the sole recommendation of the public we appreciate your comments. seven in response to the question that the gentleman proposed >> i believe our intent was to notify the filers as opposed to because a they'll need some time to complete the verification code card whether or not they're coming into our office. so there's merit to sending it out as opposed to and we can - we're just using the identification of the filer that they are who they say they are. and there's i believe on the draft form there's a check form

to show the fact that the staff has seen the id >> so you'll begin the process even though the process won't begin for a couple of months. is there any problem with that? >> i think the board has endorsed the signature process already. >> is there a motion? >> what - are you aware of any fraud problems or anything that have come up as a result of how san diego has used this? >> no, but there's a lot of potential for it. if you're faxing in a signature

card there's no way to verify who sent it in or whose receiving the pin number. in the future we plan to have the form 410 that is established for the committee and another form when they're going to run for office. if we put that in electronic format we'll never see the individual. and if we move to protein for those two additional forms we can verify the filers identity but in san diego they're not going to be able to do that >> and it's that is up to the

person to keep their information secret. >> we feel what we have a robust enough to avoid situations. >> san diego is not strong enough so we took it to a step further. at the later date if the person gives their pin number to someone else - in san diego there's no way on behalf of the candidate that they would keep their information secret >> we may have to implement a process where you'll have to

change our id information. we'll want to monitor it and we can institute further things to keep information save >> if i might. for a candidate controlled committees where a candidate has to sign and the treasurer has to sign there maybe multiple committees were not the same treasureor for that candidate so will candidates and treasurers be independently be able to sign off and not be identified? and i'm thinking through that. >> so one of the reasons we developed this to separate the signers from the committee.

and there's a committee account and the filing is created in that account usually by the treasurer and each individual will have to check in and for instance the information will stay in a file until sent out. anything else? >> is there a motion to approve this? i move to approve that change to the sequa regulation. >> second. >> all in favor? okay. the motion passes.

another computer issue we're going to be discussing and on net files contracts the renewal of that >> so the commission has a contract with net file which is our electronic filing vendor and that contract will end in september of this year. the contracting process in this city is very length yes and requires approval by the civil serve commission. it is - the commission has previously entered into two contracts to provide the system for finance statements lobbyist statements and statements of

economical interests. it's the only vendor that the state has approved so we only have one system and the system is shared by 20 industries that lowered our maintenance costs and allowed us to improve the system. there are a brief memo and i'll answer any questions about it. m >> this memo represents a lot of time we spent on that. we do get some benefits and we think about that carefully as we plan ahead so the negotiations are crafted very careful. the city has a lot of

requirements and we go through a lot of hurdles and hoops so this represents a significant amount of time and care >> i have some questions. first of all, thank you for your your hard work and electronic system and thank you for your work. i.e.. a little confused about this particular me up 0 it's not clear we have a viable alternative. so what really are you asking? so >> so prior to 2007 from about

1999 to 2007 the city co- could file one finance form. that then a department came to the commission and a announced they were discontinuing the practice in the commission. and they had net file that wouldn't rebuild the system because it was going to cost a lot of money >> we don't have any additional. if the commission decided i didn't want to go in this decision staff would very quickly have to come up with an alternate and we wouldn't know

what to do. >> we could say this isn't working for us but it is. >> what about the cost? >> for the first time we've maintained costs for 6 years static. in this it's going to go up. i think that net file has been for bearing to ask for more because the city has made strong pleas to the contractor of the city to recognize the budget and they've sort of recognized that. and another one is that by working with us to develop several different platforms set of xablts we've enhanced their ability to sell the product in

other cities so it's compensation for it but the reality of inflation it's not really feasible for them to give us what is ultimately a discount. and what we're looking at is we're asking for more so the costs will increase >> and do we know how many? >> i don't have the numbers here but the initial contracts what between 1 hundred and 40 thousand per year. >> i think it's 1 hundred and 17. >> it's reasonable. >> and my final question on

this is do we just begin to negotiate the contract? >> well, it's already been negotiated and we - we could have had the price the same for 2 years and then a steep increase but we decided to have it remain static. we need our approval and there's 17 different departments that have to sign off >> we need to see if contracting is the most efficient system. that's on the civil service report >> we're not here actually approving the contract. >> right. for example, the human rights

commission has already approved it but we still need you to approve it >> i'm supportive of it. i believe 1 hundred and 17 thousand though it seems high is less than a programmer in this city so if we did this in how is it would cost more. not that i'm giving a general assessment of the department of the technology. but >> - >> no comment. >> i think this is the best course of action. they really do have all the documents their subject to redaction and all the filings

there's a lot we have relatively at low-cost. i'm very supportive of this. thank you. did i mention steve is doing a great job? >> is there a motion? >> so moved. >> the decision is that we determine that this is the most effective way of filing electronic filing system that meets the needs of the commissioner. that's my motion and i approve that >> i second. >> all in favor? >> i should state that the department of technology cooperates with us and is very

helpful. >> now next up agenda is to consider the minutes of the commissions special meeting on april 1st the minutes of that meeting. comments on those amendments? any correction? changes? >> approved. public comment; right? >> i found no errors the record will show that it was too early in the morning. >> he watches the reruns and a

motion to approve? >> second. >> all in favor? okay moving right along >> there's two highlights in the director's report. i want to remind everyone that the regular meeting is on memorial day and the building is closed >> that's going to stop us? >> the meeting has been rescheduled for thursday the 30th. i'll send you a reminded in that. we also plan to address the board of supervisors report that was conducted last year and we expect that that that discussion any take some time it would be a

longer meeting. and there's an attachment about an information port all that they've been providing to the city of san francisco. 70 is trying to get the information out there for sort of a one stop setting for data. they've endorsed this product. it speaks well, for us and again steven left but for stevens work in keeping the information that we have out there and easily available and assessable to the public. i mean, it's not about us but it certainly sheds a favorable light on some of our efforts. any questions?

>> okay items for future meeting? oh, comments? >> under item 2 apparently, the staff done as i asked and noticed where gentlemen agreements have been approved and so i thank you for that thank you. >> finally items for future meetings? okay. and finally public comment? public comments from public on

future meetings? no public comment? what about public comments on information not on or on the agenda? well, i want to thank the staff and the public for making my first mooeft as the ethics committee as chair very easy and fast. this is the shortest meeting i've eve i've ev i've ever attended. okay. the meeting of the ethics

committee is >> i would like to thank the members of sfgtv covering this meeting as well as the clerk. do we have any announcements? >> yes, silence all cell phones and electronic devices and complete the speaker cards and documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. >> the items will appear on the