this gift becoming public. i know there was a newspaper article about it. i don't know whether that was before or after the district attorney posted the information on his website or the form 803, but in terms of our advice -- one other carification. our office treats as confidential our conversations with officials about ethics issues. so i know you mentioned the district attorney had conversations with our office and i -- >> i understand you provided general advice that laid it out. >> so what i said in response to supervisor kim's question is our general add advice on this matter. you're correct that

the ftpc is the arbitrator. in this scenario, these facts, based on the ftpc's past advice letters, it's our general advice would apply that a form 801 is the appropriate filing, but as you said the ftpc is the ultimate arbitrator. they also handle allegations that officials have accepted gifts in excess of the gift limit, but this is a law that is set by the state. >> and one follow up. so one of the opinion letters seems to suggest a different direction involving a foundation that purchased the house for the use of the governor of california

and future governors that want to use it and the conclusion that they reached was that the provision of the house was a gift to the government and not the individual. can you reconcile that with the advice that you're providing to us? >> sure. it requires reconciling the various ftpc advice letters. the letter you are referencing, i believe was issued in 1984 two decades before the form 801 existed and sometime before the adoption of the regulation that requires the form 801. the ftpc has referenced that letter in years since, but i don't think it's referenced that advice letter since 1985. the add advice that i referred to earlier

where the college president received art in her office, was the advice of the ftpc in 2009 and that advice was consistent with advice when we sought advice on behalf of the mayor in 1994 with regards to a gift of energy efficient equipment for the mayor's car. if a challenge to reconcile those letters and i'd acknowledge and the ftpc repeatedly acknowledges that these are fact determined -- this is based on the letter you cited. >> and i would agree, they do seem to go in a lot of

want to know -- on behalf of the district attorney's office to answer questions if questions arise. let's proceed supervisor campos. >> thank you. this is a very interesting conversation and you can see something like this being put on a law school exam 'cause there's so many interesting issues that are implicated. i have the utmost respect for the district attorney and i think this is about trying to make sure that there is come -- compliance with the rules. i think there is a larger question from a public policy standpoint whether or not it's a good idea for government officials like the district /toerpbl or any one of us to do this and i

think that's something that requires more discussion and i don't know if it is a good thing or bad thing. the challenge that i have with the situation is that you have, in this case, the district attorney essentially with respect to the state law issues, having received information from the ftpc saying he is in compliance, which means that for purposes of state law, at least i'm satisfied that that has been addressed. the question is, what are the rules that govern us pursuant to local law, including the attorney's interpretation to state law. and even though we have a situation where the ftpc had said where it's okay for the district attorney to accept this under state law, we're hea

saying that their advice to any elected official in this situation is we would file an 801, so the challenge that i have -- i'd like to find a mechanism so that we can move forward and put this behind us -- we would be having a different practice with respect to this case versus cases going forward. we would be saying it's okay to accept this gift without an 801, but going forward everyone else has to file an 801 and so i actually like the idea of, i think as a compromise, approving this, but with the caveat that it will be approved once an 801 is filed, not because it's an admission that somehow the da did not

follow the rules, or somehow in this particular case there was no compliance with state law, but simply because from a public policy perspective, we don't have a separate set of rules for one official as opposed to another. i like what supervisor kim presented, that we approve this with the understanding that there will be a filing of 801, so that not because in this particular case the ftpc says you have to file it, but that we as a city believe that as a matter of policy it's a good thing for that 801 to be filed. i like the idea of approving it with the understanding that an 801 will be filed because i do think that it's important for

us to make sure that we create a path for this issue to be resolved, but also to make sure there is consistency moving forward. i think that approach that supervisor kim suggested is a very creative way in allowing us to be consistent and also find a resolution for this. >> i know this is a little bit of discussion in the budget meeting. would you -- >> we had a lengthy discussion about this at budget and for those of you not on that committee,maybe i could give you a brief synopsis. the ftcp regulates forms 801 and 803.

the complaint that was filed said that a form 801 should have been filed here. the ftpc says there's nothing to look at here, it was a /tkpwao* gift -- it was a gift to the city. if you haven't been in the situation of accepting gifts [inaudible] and the same information is revealed in both. in the 803 the only requirement is that we reveal donors over 5000 dollars, but we reveal them all because we wanted to make sure the transparency is in place. we want the community and government to be aware that this was accepted on behalf of

the city. so the ftpc is the final arbitrator. i appreciate that we can discuss this and that the city has an opinion, but we don't need to review this because the state body that regulates this has made a determination that everything was appropriate. >> i want to acknowledge supervisor cam /pos. >> i appreciate that. i think it's a request more than anything else. it's not so much that we're say /tph-g this particular case the da had to file an 801. we understand that the ftpc in terms of their interpretation of state law has said that you don't need to do that, but this is the board saying we want to have the same rules apply to all of the electeds. and we understand that the da in y

have a different perspective, but we want to have the same rule. and so why not to simply say all of us are going to have to file one if we find ourselves in this case. i know you've been told you don't have to, but this is the board of supervisors, a local body saying let's all agree to do this. what's wrong with that? it's not an admission of anything wrong. >> no. it's not. and in fact, the information on both forms is the same. the issue is the ftpc has said the 801 is the appropriate form. and there concern requirements under 801 of how those solicitations occur and ours does not meet those, it meets 803. i think if this body wanted to request

that on a go forward basis, i think that'd been very appropriate, buck based on the information we received -- the advice and conclusion of that look back by the ftpc, the 803 was the appropriate one. >> the problem i have with that is i don't think the city /toerpbl would be advising us to go forward with the 801 wasn't a relevant form. the fact that they're saying that would be the advice here, i would ask the city attorney to think about this because i think it's a different thing of what we're saying. we're saying that we as a policy body believe that all of us should be subjected to the same rules, whether you agree with the rule itself or not. and so i think in terms of uniformity

and consistency it makes sense. i'd like to resolve this issue, i'd like to find a way to approve this item and i think this provides an opportunity to do that. >> supervisor cohen. >> my question is for the city attorney's office. you were talking about adding a level of transparency on the local level, complimentary to form 801 and 803. i want to make sure that anything that we do here, or whatever the state decides, still supercedes any jurisdiction that we have here on the local level, correct? so if we pass something here on the local level and the state says this is not in compliance with our definition or how we

believe a form 801 or 803 should believe filled out, the state would supercede. >> they have a regular /hraougs that describes when the 801 needs to be filed. the format that requires all of the filings is a state law, but it says that local government can impose additional ethics rules on their local officials and san francisco has done that in a number of ways. the one that sticks out is regarding gifts of travel. gifts of travel are regulated by the political

reform act. locally we have an additional filing requirement that when an elected official goes on a trip that is not paid for by the official, the elected official has to file a special form with additional information before the official travels. that is supplement state law. i think that's the suggestion of supervisor campos that locally the city could supplement state law. my response to supervisor kim and chiu's questions really go to our interpretation of state law, based on the ftpc's advice on the matter. this is not the conclusion the ftpc reached in this case. >> i think it was supervisor kim raised an issue about a third-party entity reviewing -- serving as a pass through for

the dissemination for gifts or dollars donated. one, if this is in another jurisdiction. i also would be interested if there's a cost associated with in? sounds like there wouldn't be, but wanted to see if you could opine on that. >> if any board member wants us to pursue that as a possibility, i'd be happy to do that. under state law, that type of fund would be allowed because an individual, a third-party would be giving a gift to the city to be used for the beauty of the city offices

and as long as it was reported on 801, that would be appropriately reported gift under state law. we could create a different process or procedure under local law and i'd be happy to explore that if you'd like us to /*fp >> i think my final thought is -- i'm just question if there's a real need for an extra level of transparency here on the local level because in the end i believe these forms are filed so that people will know who's giving what to whom and how much. that information is public, it exists already in

form 803 or 801. i'd be willing to hear a little bit more conversation from supervisor cam pose to get a better understanding as to why you're interested in introducing additional bureaucratic steps. could he respond to that? >> we have a number of folks on the roster but i'd be happy to acknowledge supervisor campos after we get to that. >> if the rest of us are going to have to file an 801 in a situation going forward, that it makes sense in this situation to make sure it's filed as well. make sure there is a uniform rule that applies to all electeds in the city.

>> but doesn't that exist already under the fact that we are operating under the ftpc. >> my interpretation is file an 801 -- all of us, so having the requirement that an 801 be required here makings sure that all of us follow the same rules. >> thank you. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. this has been an interesting discussion and i guess my perspective is different than supervisor campos'. i think it would set an extraordinary /pres /tkepblt precedent for us [inaudible]

if we want all elected officials to have to file an 801 in this circumstance or department to file 801 in addition to 803, then by all means the member of this board or mayor can submit a drafting request to the committee. state law requires you disclose travel after. we didn't just announce that in one circumstance we're going to now require that you do this. we amended the law, went through the legislative process. if someone wants to do that here and say that everyone has to file an 801, by all means someone can sponsor that legislation. we don't have that legislation. what we do have is state law and the agency that enforces that state law, agree or disagree, has stated that the district attorney was required to file

an 803, but not an 801. he complied and filed an 803. now any member of this board as a matter of policy in deciding to vote for or against, can decide -- i can't support it. that's a perfectly legitimate conclusion to reach. i have the utmost respect for my former office and colleagues, but we know that when the city attorney provides us advice, it is just that. and i think we can go through a long list when the city attorney has signed off on a form, but has cautioned us that there could be legal problems. we can accept or not accept that advice. if someone believes

that a da has violated ethics laws by not filing an 801, they can file a complaint, and that was what was done here. i also wanted to say that i agree that the core function of all of 801, of 803 is disclosure to the public so the public knows that this person is accepting something of value from this person. then the public can say i like you more or like you less and that's what the disclosure is for. this has been fully disclosed. it's disclosed in the forms. the da

under the law is allowed to accept these gifts and disclose them. that's what he's done. he's complied with the ftpc. i don't see any reason to reject this resolution. >> supervisor farrell. >> i think supervisor wiener captured a lot of what i want to say. it's evident that we take these laws seriously and that we comply. i think as supervisor wiener mentioned, these are the same forms, it's out in the public, everyone knows about it. we're dealing with one or two forms. i would venture to guess that members of the public want disclosure, that i they don't care what

form it's on. if i'm in the da's position, i call up the ftpc to see what to do and that's what they did. here we are instructing the da to do something different than what the governing body of this document instructed them to do. i don't get that. if we want this discussion later, then i'm up for that, but from the point of view from what the da did, obviously nobody's saying he did anything wrong, but i also take his perspective on the advice from the governing body and in my position that should call the day. >> any additional discussion. >> supervisor kim.

>> i just -- >> if you could turn your mic on. >> the reason why they're giving us this advice is because that's the guidance you give other offices. it's just having a level of consistency in terms of advice that you're giving to officials in the city. >> yeah. we give the same advice across the board to all officials. as supervisor chiu pointed out, the facts are different almost every time and when we come across a novel question we will review the ftpc's opinion. >> is it more that they said

they're not going to investigate this matter, or did they say 803 is the appropriate form and 801 is not, this is the incorrect form? >> well, i have not spoken with the ftpc. i have received two letters, one to the da from the ftpc and one to charlie, a member of the public who filed the complaint. the main question about the 801 is whether the da in this case received a personal benefit and the letter from the ftpc says that based on the facts of the situation, the da did not receive a personal benefit and therefore there's no gift to the district attorney and no

form 801 is required. >> so they said the 801 is not required. >> it didn't reference 801, but it said the da did not receive a personal /pwepbl fit. /pwepbl fit. benefit. >> i'd like to move forward and i'd like to support this item so i'd like to make a motion to move on with the understanding that an 801 will be filed. >> so you would like it to consider that factor. so a question to supervisor campos about that motion. so if you need to abide by the requirements in that form, the

da actually wouldn't be able to sign that because he isn't within the requirements of 801. >> that would be a question for the city attorney. >> city attorney, that's a challenging question. based on what i know, /pwaeulsed on based only public record, i don't know of any facts that the -- there are certainly occasions when officials, either because they're unsure or in abundance state and local

if there is a provision in the form 801 that the da or someone there in that office could not sign, then we certainly would advise not to sign it. >> supervisor /waoepbler. wiener. >> i'll withdraw. >> this is a motion to amend, correct? >> i will not be supporting the motion to amend. we are not the enforcement agency for whether to file an 801, the ftpc is. they said that an 801 is not required. i don't see why would we require this when the enforcement agency says it's not. again, everything

has been disclosed. it was disclosed in the 803, it was disclosed in the resolution pending before us today. i don't see what the point of inserting this here is when, if we really think this is that important, someone can introduce legislation and do it the right way and the way that we pass these requirements with a fully vetted public process. >> supervisor campos made a motion. is there a second? seconded by supervisor avalos. >> overall, as i stated at the beginning of this conversation, i don't really feel comfortable approving this. feel we're put in a difficult position with this