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 this case may 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 of caution file both state and local forms, but 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 accept and expend. this is a retro active accept and expend. i don't feel comfortable with that. i don't feel comfortable having this open discussion about what was a proper form when we have the

city attorney on one hand saying something else should have been done. the district attorney, i believe should follow what is given by the district attorney. i'm voting no, i will accept the amendment first, we'll see how that goes and i'll base my decision on that. >> let's take the roll. >> just for clarification, the district attorney's [inaudible] clerk of the board to place in our file as well? >> yes. supervisor campos' motion. >> did you want to put a time on that? >> yes. maker of the motion.

>> one month. would that be sufficient city attorney? >> this is a policy call for the board. >> one month. >> do you want to reread the motion to amend. >> that would be by june 11. on item -- on the motion. >> that the district /toerpbl's >> chiu no, farrell no, kim no, mar i, tang no, wiener no, yee

no, avalos i, breed no, campos i. there are three i's and eight no's. further discussion. >> i want to reiterate what i said about a retro active accept and expend. seems like every one we get is a retro active accept and expend. that is not the way we should be doing business. i think it should have its own law that we have to approve these before the gifts get into the hands of our apartments. i'd like to ask our city attorney what advice we might have in terms of how we accept gifts before

the fact and not after. >> i'd be happy to look into that. if you'd like us to explore options, we'd be happy to. >> we would, but we're out of hours. >> we'll discuss after the meeting. >> as i had said earlier, i'd like to see this issue resolved. my reference would have been that 801 would have been filed and we'd have approval based on that. i'll be honest, i came in here not really knowing what i would do, but in case of where we are in this particular case, given that you have a letter from the ftpc, i can't vote against it.

i do believe that we as the city, should move forward and clarify some of the rules and it looks like maybe there's an interest in doing that. /tkpwepbl, i think that a form 801 should be filed not because the ft /p*rbgc says we have to, but because we have the advice of our city attorney's office and i think as a matter of policy, all of us should follow the sail rules. that said, in this particular case, you have the ft pc saying there is come come /phraoeupbls compliance so i will be supporting that. >> supervisor wiener. >> just in terms of the retro activity, i think to be clear to benefit members of the public who don't review our agendas every week, we all know that there are retro actives on

this board. yes, ideally all departments would submit accept and expends before accepting it. i don't think we should single out the da when pretty much every department has done this before. this is not something where the da has done something that's so out of bounds of what other departments have done. >> supervisor kim. >> i know i was the initial one who suggested the 801. i think we should think about putting

it into the code so it's clear to everyone. i think this is a case where we want to do what the right thing is. if other officials are filling occupant form 801 in similar circumstances then perhaps we should just codify it. i think that's what opened up that discussisurprised that we are allowed to set up a third-party /aeu /koupblt. i think it's just problematic that any entity can do /tphaet donate. it seems to be a big loophole that i didn't realize existed. this is not anything on what the da done. this