situation. >> i have questions about this as well. >> so i am a little confused on the 2 points that were raised in the report and the staff's memo about it. so the first point is that we don't need, we san francisco do not conduct as many enforcement actions and he is suggesting that los angeles had 354 and we had 137. in your explanation, you refer to a different time period instead of october 2004 to 2011, you refer to since 1993, and suggest that if from that time period, the numbers are closer, 496 to 508.

>> are you disputing? >> no. >> so we are initiating far fewer enforcement actions than la? >> and the answer is that i will be right, but we may be but what we are saying in the memo is that la also includes these enforcement actions which are forfeitures which we do not include. are those the excess contribution cases? >> yes. >> but, it would be helpful to know of these 203, how many have been in the time period that was used by the budget analyst. >> because you are taking 203 out of 496, instead of giving us the number out of the 354. i will have to look into that a

little bit more. >> okay. >> secondly, if you take that number out, are we saying that the excess always get enforcement actions, i am a lawyer i should know the right term for this. find or sustained? >> is that... >> so the way that la handles it, and i am the one that spoke to la. >> the way that they handle it from my understanding is that not only do they keep the excess as forfeiture they in

addition enforce the enforcement. they initiate the enforcement against the agency and the contributor and impose a fine, how they do it is different they have a tiered system, like the first time that you make it off with nothing and the second time it is a second infraction and so, that is not included in here, but there is a sort of tire.ed financial and it is pretty set. >> so, we traditionally do not start an enforcement action, when there is an excess contribution violation, if you will. we just collect the forfeited amount. >> so the proposal here is just highlighting that close to half of the cases, over that entire period of time. there are excess contribution cases so if we had also initiated those as enforcement

actions that our enforcement action statistics or numbers would have likely gone up and not only that, those actions are generally sort of selected but in terms, slam dunk settlements if you will and there is no fighting it for the contributor or for the committee and so they are not dismissed in any way because it happened. does that make sense? >> yeah. >> so we are saying that the excess contribution has a dual effect, and it artificially increases the number of enforcement actions that appear to be a number that are initiating and it increases or lowers the rate of dismissal because almost all of those end up in enforcement actions being sustained. >> that was correct. >> we also have the mechanism to make them enforcement actions as well and i think that traditionally the commission has not done that and so that is something to consider at this point, and that is the way that the commission feels that it should go. and the problem that i received

in la is that it helped to some degree because it puts the tours on as well and to keep the committee and the majority and the mutual check for each other. >> because the contributor knows on the hook as well. >> i think when we revisit this issue it would be helpful to compare apple to apples if you are going to be taking and using numbers, would i use them for the same time for the budget analyst so we can see what the delta is. >> commissioner, i would suggest that as a third impact, on the numbers and that is they impose fines, which are over and above the excess contribution. so that it also makes their collections look better than

ours. >> interesting. >> in general, i think that it is very, it is some what dangerous to look at to look at ways of sustaining enforcement actions as a measure of how well the ethics commission or anybody is doing its job. and i know for example, prosecutors certainly look at conviction rates and they look at how many cases they bring, but at the end of the day, these are just very rough and attempts to try to see how effective we are and i am not sure and maybe it is the only measure how we are doing, to look at this with caution and how to evaluate the over all effectiveness.

>> we are also trying to compare the jurisdiction and sometimes it is difficult for the comparisons to be apt. >> any further comment on that? >> commissioners? >> now, while those are the 7 questions, that you presented to us, mr. st. croix, in addition there were some additional areas that you referred to in your memo. and i don't know if any of you have comments about that. there was some discussion about acceptance of contributions on city premiseses. >> you know, if the commission wishes to specifically spell that out, that is fine. we think that it is already

illegal. under the statements of incompatible activities in san francisco but it is not legal for the city building. >> madam chair. as i read the package of the touch package of comments from the participants in these meetings, there were some interesting questions that came up and i just wonder how mr. st. croix you were thinking that we might, you know, go through them and raise others of them at future times. did you think that the group that we looked at here were the only ones that you wanted to bring forward at this point? or is this a rolling process and how might we suggest if we... >> those were the specific

things outlined in the report. and some of these others, you know, are based on the report and other comments. so, if there is any in particular, that you wanted to discuss, i think that we can do that. now. >> well, i don't want to drag it out. and i like the process of the staff giving us some idea of what the context is. and some of these may, in fact, the items that are important, but the others may be things where there is a factual misunderstanding or if we flag them and we may learn that there is already something that covers that point. >> so, one possibility would be for me to just let you know which ones i thought... >> i think that the chair and i discussed. >> that we were going to encourage the commissioners to contract the two of us that you wanted it. >> perfect. >> excellent. >> and then we will put them in

the future discussions. >> okay. >> the only one that i will mention here that i can flag in that way, are these supporters committees and the general purpose committees and that kept coming up and just, laying to rest that there are rules that cover them in terms of limits or is there something that we need to do about it growing area? of potentials? >> commissioner hur? >> can i ask one other question about item number 7? i know that we have kind of moved on. would that be okay? >> yes. >> has the staff considered what we can do within our budget restraints and within our staffing constraints to improve our enforcement process? >> well, that has been an

ongoing self-reflection for years. and again, i think that recently we have done a much better job. there is a lot in the pipeline that has been the product of very productive work. that will be coming out in the future meetings and i think that we are going to continue to ramp up our capabilities and our accomplishments in that area. so it is something that we contemplate all of the time. >> i mean, specifically, what, what do you think has changed recently? >> or will change in the near future? >> that i think we are doing a lot more work in terms of taking complaints and getting better legwork done in terms of interviewing witness and looking at paperwork and documents. one of those areas that is difficult to improve is a lot of folks that is investigated drag their feet and make it difficult to get requires, and i can't speak to specific cases

i can say that there are investigations and have not shown up repeatedly. and we moved to subpoenas, and we worked that way and it is a longer process. and so, in terms of getting cooperation from witnesses, i don't know that there is a way to improve that, that is just a built in problem. and we do have a vacantcy on the enforcement staff and part of the budget is that we be able to fill that spot and therefore have another person working on these issues. >> it is better about sticking to it to the matrix of accomplishment that we do, and what we do when and how quickly we need to get it done. but there is a lot of factors in the relation that slow the staff down. but having said that, you know,

specifically, we, we are much better at identifying documents that we knew and we are better at identifying witnesses that we need to talk to and we are better about, you know, doing everything that we can to get compliance with the request of the investigations. and we have also communicated better with the departments and everything about what is expected of them and for example, under the statements of incompatible activities that they are for and reporting for compliance. >> thank you. >> and the final public comments on the seven areas and then additional areas that... >> larry bush, friends of ethics and one of them is improved areas of information. and i want to point out a couple of things. one is that until, 2009, when

the ethics commission adjusted what was defined as a lobbyist, there was a category called an expenditure or a grassroots lobby. and that was where the bulk of money was sent and that is when the people reach out to the public and ask the public, would you please contact city hall on behalf of our issues? ? and just to give you an example from the last three months of 2009, this is the last period that we had. we have at&t spent $1,000 in direct lobbying, and 600,000 in expenditure, pg&e, $5,000 in direct lobbying and $65,792 expenditure lobbying. and the public power group, sf common sense coalition spent nothing on lobbying and $58,000 expenditures. >> and we believe, that the commission will restore this category, and if the category that exists in other

jurisdictions. >> think about washington and the fact that they are holding meetings and trying to encourage people to take action, and favorable to them. and none of that is being reported. for the public. and the only way that it was reported before was that as an expenditure part of this record. and the same thing goes for the lawyers arena, it is invisible and it has gone dark and so i would suggest that you take a long strong look to what it was that you did provide information on, and now don't. and the second category in that is major donors. they are those people who contribute, $10,000 or more in an election cycle. >> we have no place on the web that tell us here are the lists of major donors in san francisco. and they are, for want of a better term, the death cats of the election system ethe fact that they are not specifically pulled out and revealed to the public is a problem. thank you.

>> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> all right. i think that we have given you work to do. >> yes. >> and we will come back and revisit this with more specific language. and i appreciate the work that you have done. >> next item is electronic filing. and i have a report on that. >> yes. there is a staff report, regarding this recently the state passed legislation that would allow local jurisdiction to require the electronic filing of statements of economic interest formed 700, annually and filed within 30

days of assuming, and the file of 30 days of leaving office. and what we would like to do is go forth, with a proposal with the met file as the entity desk going to provide the electronic filing with the seis and we believe that the electronic filing of the seis is important because it allows us to up load information on our website within 24 hours, for about having the need for us to process paper phones and (inaudible) before up loading them. and so it would be the information that would be available much more quicker on the website. and what we would need to do. to process this, is to send a proposal over to work and the proposal for the apc and to allow a check for $1,000.

>> we are working on the process. >> to push for the regulations, so that we can get it in place for this process for any filings that come to the commission as of january first, 2014, and now these proposals only apply for filers of filers and the seis, and these are the folks who are department heads. and members of those in commission, and agency heads. we are not talking about the designated employees that file. we may go that route at a later date and we are focusing on the se is with the ethics commission and so there are 7 regulations broken down into four. >> four decision points.

and in general, for three of these, six of these regulations, i mean that three of them are kind of like identical and it is only that we refer to different sections of the code, would that require the folks to file with us. and so, the first regulation, the first regulations are the regulations 3.1-03,-1, and 500-1 and what these regulation woulds do would require the folks to file with us and to file the sei in the electronic format for the ethics commission for 2013, and gives us to decision point one and that i am happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you. >> questions on this?

>> it seems straight forward. >> public comment? >> david pilpal,vy spent a fair amount of time with the staff talking about about my concerns and i have no objections to this proposal, in fact i am very supportive of electronic filing. i have concerns about how this would roll out and i did want to provide the commission a copy of a document that i found on the web. about net file and i got copies for the staff and the public if anyone cares. about net file and their forms 700. electronic filing, solution, i thought that the commission whether you adopt these regulations tonight, or in the future, should be aware of how this system works my understanding is that it does not actually... that you don't

actually go through the form 700, on each line, but it asks you questions and based on the data that you answer, it fills in the form for you. one of the challenges initially is that filers in the city under this scheme would have to electronically file their form 700 but still file paper copies of their sunshine declaration statement and ethics training. however, in the future, those forms may be added to this system and importantly, the next time that they file a form 700, electronically through the system, it would have the same data. so to the extent that your investments and property records and all of the things that one might have as a subnative disclosures remain the same, those would carry

forward and to the extent that there are changes one can edit those changes essentially, but it requires more work the first time one is filing and a lot less work on subsequent filings, that is my understanding. also, with regard to the regulations, i looked very carefully at the language of the cngc code, 3.10,-103, etc. that is attached here, i believe that those positions that are listed in 3.1-500 and-510, are also in a1 and b1 and so i am not sure that the draft regulations in the 500 series are required i think that they are already, those persons are already listed in

3.1-10 3a and b. and so i would ask the staff to look more carefully if that is the case. >> thank you. >> the 500 series would not be needed. >> thank you. >> that is regulation. >> thank you. >> additional public comment? >> >> commissioners any questions on that? >> motion? >> yes, please. >> i like to hear the comments. >> the staff response to david pilpal's question about the 3.1 dash. >> so i am looking at the ordinance that he sites, and well it is true that for instance, the mayor has already listed in section 3.1-103, and the supervisors, the clerk is listed in that section but the memberss of the board of

supervisors are not listed there. >> we have to have the regulation to put those folks in. >> the state law requires that the conflict of interest code specifically list out different categories of filers and 87200 filers which were in the

3.1-500510, include the management, managerial employees that manage public investments and so those are listed out in 3.1-510, like the chief investment treasurer that i don't believe are listed under the 3.1-103 section. >> if i could just clarify. >> that is true, however, those are astrisk, and they file with the office and not the ethics commission and therefore would not fall under the electronic filing. and not the filing officer or the filing official. or the 500, or 510 folks are where the ethics commission file as the official and not the officer under state law and i think that we are good and

all that we are suggesting is that the folks that you are trying to capture are already in 103 one way or the other. >> thank you. >> all right, i agree with mr. pilpal. based on that, my recommendation is that we just cross out regulation 3.1-500-1 and that we also when we get to it, cross out the regulation 3.1. and dash three. >> and they are already covered as mr. pilpal points out. >> and so.

on the decision point one, we only need to consider draft regulation 3.1-103-1,; is that correct?? >> that is correct. >> any further questions? >> from the commissioners? >> could i have a motion? >> i move that we adopt decision 3.1. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> we will pass 3.1-103-1. >> the next regulation basically requires each filer to provide a working e-mail address to the ethics commission and it runs through the system that will generate a password that will be accessible only to the filer via, the e-mail address. and what we are asking under the regulation is that they provide to us the commission a

working and unique e-mail address on or before january first, 2014. >> it sounds very controversial. >> i could live with that. >> and that is 3.1-103-2. >>; is that correct?? >> that is correct. >> what about 3.1-500-2? >> we are eliminating. >> you eliminated that one? >> yeah. >> okay. >> i think that steven can address why we need the e-mail address. >> so the form 700 needs to be signed under penalty of perjury, so there needs to be some authentication method to say that you are in fact the

person that you say you are in the system. >> the way that the system works is that the commissioners would provide an e-mail address to their commissioners and secretary, and who would provide a list of e-mail addresses to the ethics commission and we would input those e-mail addresses into the system and then the filer would go to our website and would enter their e-mail address which would send the password to the account back to that filer. and because of that process, the ethics and staff or anyone else would have access to the password only that filer would have access. >> and so we know that when we go in there and complete the form and check off they are say that they are signing under penalty of surgery that they are the ones that logged in. this is the authentication method that is made in the two available systems that it has approved and if we decide not to collect the e-mail address we would not be able to use any of the systems on the market

right now. >> any questions on that one commissioners? >> public comment? >> david pilpal again, i don't object i just have concerns about burdening city officers who may not have e-mail, may not want to have e-mail and may not want to subject themselves to to the information and privacy policies to a third party aoe mail provisor and for which a city department does not have the resources or does not want to provide the e-mail that they have another option. and so that is what your next provides for, and that is some alternative scheme, i think that it is going to be very important to