what would now be the success or agency and like the health authority so that they are covered, one of the reasons for going for a year instead of six months? is because contrast it as modified, and in addition to which, candidates are prohibited i believe, that this is correct, from collecting money for a campaign is over, which is a six-month period and it should go for the full year so that you are not trailing afterwards. so i urge that you take a full year and a look at the full range of those issues, thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> hello, i'm glen rogers and i am here for a ethics violation. but i was not planning on speaking on this issue. although i feel as if i might be able to shed some light on it. and you know as a landscape contractor, i have had many

times when i have waited six months for a project to begin, when you have the large projects that have to do with a city, construction, you know, park merced for example, this project has been going on or waiting for development for over a year, year and a half. and it could as long as that into future. i think that the longer that you have to wait, the longer that you have the people wait, in order to make a contribution, the more likely it is going to be a contribution that is not going to have any influence. and i think that undue influence is really what we want to avoid here. and one year is good, but two years might even be better. that is my suggestion, thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, david pilpal and i want to clarify as to mr.

bush's point about the san francisco housing authority. my understanding is that the housing authority is a separate agency from the city created under state law and subject to hud requirements but not subject to city ordinances, although the mayor does appoint the members of the housing authority board or commission. and i don't believe that our ethics law extend to the san francisco housing authority. thanks. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> based on this conversation, i think that for item one, we will go ahead and bring follow up proposals because you are not going to make any decisions tonight >> might we make a decision tonight? >> no. >> you didn't know. >> because you need the specific language. >> right. >> so, we will have language

where you will have the option of extending it 12 months. we will look at the threshold for 100,000 dollar threshold and if you want to reduce that and then we will look at restrictions and prohibitions on fund-raising by contractors who are prohibited from making contributions. >> so based on the discussion on item one, we are going to follow through on those. commissioner hur? >> just a couple of additional comments. on the $100,000, i'm personally at this point in favor of keeping the limit. i understand there is a burden for those who are going for contracts of that side. that it does not apply in la, but i think that we are also, i think that we have a smaller budget, right? than la? >> yeah. >> over all? >> so the percentage matter, i am not sure the difference is

as big as it seems. in addition, i think that it would be very helpful to require the donorto, to affirm that they have not made the contributions or done the things that were prohibited. i think that is a helpful thing that la requires that we could benefit from. and finally, i appreciate the effort that has been made into determining what we can do about electronic notification and disclosure. and would encourage the continued evaluation of that. because that would be really helpful. and i think that the public has benefited greatly from our efforts in other areas relating to electronic disclosure. and to the extent that we are able to come up with the additional solutions as time goes on, you know,

from registered lobbyist? this would be a major change. and i don't imagine that it would make our lobbyist happy but it is sort of a clear

decision. in terms of a change in current san francisco ordinance verses what la requires. >> so i believe it to you to give us some ideas on how you feel about this. >> will this have a chance of passing the board? >> i don't have a crystal ball, sorry. >> mr. st. croix you have all of the answers, what is going on here? >> i think that it would have a

chance, actually. >> this comes up in the courts do we have the ability to limit certain rights of classes of people based on criteria and in this case we tell the lobbyists that they can't exercise the contribution rights of what they practice, obviously if la does it no one has challenged it yet. and if it is successful. and from a practical standpoint, i am not guaranteeing that it would pass that muster, but it appears that it might, it might well. >> public comment? >> just a quick one? >> oh, could you remind us how many lobbyists there are right now? i am trying to understand this scope of the constraint verses the potential value. roughly? the number of them? >> about 80. >> 86.

>> we just do this as an opportunity for mr. pilpal. >> but there may be... >> research. >> but the number may increase depending upon what happens with the pending legislation at the board of supervisors. that would require others to register as lobbyists so there may be many, many, more and that would make a big difference. >> so, any way, public comment? >> i think that larry bush for friends of ethics, i think that this has strong support of people from friends of ethics and to band the lobbyists from making contributions. in addition to los angeles have a ban like this, it takes place in the state capitol in sacramento. and it is well done, and many parts of the country. and it is a clear example of the pay to play and i think that the board would most likely pass it and i don't think that is the consideration for this ethics commission, but if i were to make a guess, it would be if it did not pass it,

there would be four supervisors and it would be hard to explain to the public why you are allowing the lobbyist to contract to the people who are going to client. >> thank you, just as aside, i didn't know that the commission had friends. so thank you. i am very happy to know that. >> any other comments >> i did feel, i am sorry, this is glen rogers again. i was involved in a supervisor election. i filled out this questionnaire and i feel like this was an important question and the... what i find, what i find so troubling here in san francisco is that there seems to be such an interest in development and

construction and making the city bigger and more people. and it seems to me that there is some problem with san francisco in that regard. it is almost like it is a cancer. and to me it seems that the lobbyists are very likely to have some great influence on the amount of development that is occurring here in san francisco. and so, it would be my opinion that it would be nice to have a fewer lobbyists or no lobbyists being involved in this issue. thank you. >> thank you. >> additional public comment? >> what..., when you speak of banning contributions, that is limited to how many dollars $500 or something? >> $500. >> but, would that, if you put a ban in that they could not

personally contributes $500, would it or anything stop the lobbyists from holding fund-raisers or bundling with money from other sources? >> as specific thing being on the making the contributions would simply do that. and you could extend the restriction to raising money and bundling as we discussed, you know, a few moments with the contractors. >> i guess what troubles me is that i don't think the lobbyists, $500, is going to be a pay for play. and the political candidates going to be looking for something far more than that if you are saying that... and i just wonder whether it is sort of trying to deal with a problem by swating a net. when you just are singling out and saying that i can't make a contribution. but they are free to do everything else that they might

do to raise funds and team support of a candidate. >> i have a question for mr. st. croix on this. so i am looking at the memo on page six and it says from 2010 to 2012, lobbyists in san francisco reported 614,175 dollars in contributions, those are directly from the lobbyists themselves? >> yes. but i believe that they are not just a candidate committees, but also to the independent expenditures committees. >> but in any event, if we are talking about 80 some lobbyists a year, we are talking about more than $500 per lobbyist. >> there is no limit. >> fine, it is just that there is not just, it is not just swating a net. it is a lot of money that lobbyists are contributing. >> although, and i don't take a

position, but i would think that two percent being a small share. >> 100 is a significant number from a small number of people. but two percent of all contributions is it enough to alter the landscape at that level? >> which way? >> 2 percent from a very small number of people. i mean,... >> i agree with you commissioner renne. but, i guess what i would say is perhaps it is at least at the very least a symbolic guesture on the part of the commission. even though it is certainly not going to stop, you know, the

thousands and thousands of dollars that do pass through lobbyists or to candidates are politicians. so, you know, certainly, it is a statement that we can make. >> and i think in that case, too, we would be going beyond the restrictions in la. so we would have more, and a more stringent in that case if we decided to do that. >> can you restate the suggestion commissioner renne? >> i am just hearing a sense of convergent about a particular recommendation and wondered if you could take me back. if you could take me back. >> my only reservation was that the single lobbyist and being unable to make contributions it seemed to me that is a relatively small amount of money and i didn't notice this $614,000 in contributions, although i assume that is the

whole political candidates over a two-year period. but i just didn't know that the band would really be very meaningful in terms of trying to deal with the concerns of pay for play or the ability to influence political action. >> and one clarification, do the, i notice in that same paragraph is during the same period is that the lobbyist reported that the clients contributed $20,000 is that part of the reporting that lobbyists have to make on the forms or that they report what their clients have contributed to political candidate. >> >> no.

despite prohibition they seek money for candidates whether it is fund-raisers or encouraging their clients to make the contributions or having fund-raisers for that matter. this would not prevent fund-raisers. >> not the language that... has. >> have i used up my public comment? could i say something further? >> certainly. >> this has been an issue that you all are raising in this sense and with the good points, bundling is of course the biggest issue with the contributions as well as serving on finance committees and the last mayor election and one of the newspapers asked the mayor candidates for the list for the people that are on that kind of science committee and i am not required to disclose that and i am not going to. those people that are on that committee were in fact city

contractors and city lobbyists. and that they could not give, the contractors could not give directly to the lobbyist put up the force. the fact is, there are other loop holes as you go along. last year, mayor lee created something called the mayor ed lee city for san francisco and which was not a candidate committee, it was a committee that he used as a general purpose committee and raised $400,000 and almost all of that came from contractors and lobbyists and they gave that money that they carried about in that election. and one of the proposals before the state is to redefine what ... and how it would play against the mayor ed lee committee for san francisco. and so you can't cover everything but you can begin a process of recognizing where

the public has some sense that the playing field is not level and that there is an inside game at city hall. >> thank you. >> katherine. >> i just want to clarify that the $614,000 amount includes contributions to ballot measure committee and that there is no limit right now for the amount that it goes to. that you can donate. >> i just want to make sure. >> thank you. >> and any additional discussion on this point? >> are we in agreement as commissioners that we should prohibt the political contributions from registered lobbyists at this time? >> i guess that i would give

you an answer, i might. one of the, i would say the over arching problems in my mind is that i do think that the more public disclosure that we can get of what money is being spent to influence political decisions in the city and better off we are. and i don't know what the over arching way in which to do it, i am, i guess that i am less concerned about banning them from doing it, but i wanted to be something that the public can be aware of, and recognize who is... who is spending money to manipulate the legal and governmental process. >> i would say that along those lines, the proposal in the true

hererra legislation might be something that we should also strongly consider adding a disclosure of written fund-raising solicitations might help to provide the public with more information about bundling that has gone on that is being performed by the lobbyists. and i having heard my fellow commissioners on this, i don't think that it is a simple problem, i think that this is something that probably would require some more analysis so that we can come up with a solution that is both fair and adequate in terms of providing sufficient public disclosure while also addressing serious concerns about pay to play. >> anything further commissioners? >> that sufficient guidance? >> i have a quick observation. >> my organization is a california state lobbyist now.

and so i'm thinking about what that means, and i have to check whether it means all of us individually cannot contribute. but that puts a different light on it for me if you think of the lobbyist as public advocates for low interest people and getting a few dollars out of most of my staff is relatively modest income to participate in the political process or picturing the lobbyists as imagine the political cartoon of the lobbyist. and so it is something that i am trying to wrap my mind around a little. and not jump into.

some people are prohibited and we don't have the engine of alternative straggies. i am trying to reduce this in sunshine, in terms of detailed information and you know, as i read, a number of the friends at fx, and comments and reports of these meetings. one of the problems that all of these disclosure rules have to take into account is the disappearance, or not the disappearance, are the changes over time, since these rules were passed in the media's capacity to dig.

and the nature of the media to put people. and the ethics commissions generally thought that they would at the time. so there is a rip on two different angles of why i am wrestling with it and not sure on how i want to go on this. >> i agree with you commissioner studley and there are lobbyist and there are

lobbyists and the cartoon is of someone evil. but as you say, there are many public interest organizations that are lobbying for the issues that really >> at the federal level and the supreme court level and the state level, a lot of these, i think that there is a lot of conflict for, you know, laws that cross purposes. so, we have to keep that in mind. what i think that i will do with this item is that very soon that your proposal is going to be referred to us, for the comment and recommendation and i think that we can build a

discussion on these issues into what is there and if we determine that it does not go far enough, we can pass that and continue to work on reforms of the commissioners want to say. and we will continue on that and we will see what we think needs to be either added to or altered in that proposal that will avoid some of these concerns. >> and as part of that, i think that it would be helpful to know that there are only 86 lobbyists and can we have a memo that sort of describes what each one gave over the last 12... is that difficult to compile? >> i don't want... >> it is on the website so the information is there. >> and if it is part of our discussion, i think that that would add the meat on the bones.

>> okay on to the next question. >> san francisco increase the frequency with which the candidates must report the contributions and spending? >> this one is more mutled because in reality, there are two reports that la has that san francisco doesn't, one of them is a quarterly report from the year prior to the election. which we don't require, and then, the city of la requires three quarterly reports in an election year and whereas we have the 6-month report that for the period from january to june and then we have two preelection reports prior to the election and then both cities have what we called the late filing period, where the reports are more regular. and there are things at the state level that will have an

impact on how we conduct the number and frequency of the reports that we have. and so, at this point, we think that we should see what happens at the state level before we enact the changes and we may have to change or undo in the kind of foreseeable future, and i think that i am talking about within this calendar year. >> because those changes made, if they are made at the state level will probably be for the upcoming elections not this year but beyond that. >> so you think that... it sounds as if what we make decide to do really depends upon what happens with the local legislation here in san

francisco as well as the state legislation on the reporting requirements. >> right. >> so it sounds as if we need to wait for that. but in the meantime, commissioners any comments on this? >> >> i agree with the recommendation to wait and see what the state does. >> any public comment on this? >> okay. hearing none we will move on to the neck one. >> should san francisco increase the personal contribution limits in order to offset the influence of unregulated independent expenditures on city elections. >> there were some concerns because even though the cost of running for office is increased

greatly in recent years, there are some processes that are inexpensive compared to traditional campaign measures and i would think that one of the things that was indicated, for example, are mass e-mails, and spam and so on, which can be done for relatively lower threshold and so i think that the concern is based on new, the avent of technology at least partially and that reducing the threshold of activities will capture more activities that are less expensive. and we are not entirely sure, now extensive that would be. but, again, we could look at doing this, but there are also things percalating at the state level that we may change these

requirements for everyone in the state. not just locally. >> you know what? >> i think that i skipped ahead to number five. >> is there any empirical evidence that raising it to 1,000 would have offset the influence of the unregulated independent? >> i beg your par don. >> i was just talking about item five i am sorry for the confusion. >> i beg your par don. >> as to the justification for raising it, there may be one. but, the concept that it would offset the influence of unregulated independent expenditures, strikes me as probably not g