interest of the business that we do here in city hall. the legislation that you have before you today does a number of things. it imposes the amendment that would expand the issue of lobbist and more lobbying activity is subject to self disclosure requirements and limits exemptions that are currently in the law so there is no confusion about what it is that we mean to capture. we also at the same time ensure that permanent expediters have the same rules that we demand of lobbyist and attorneys that do business here in city hall. i think we both recognize that we should demand no less of ourselves than we do of the public and the interest we seek to regulate. that's why our legislation also calls for greater accountability for oversight, contracts, procurement and grant making

that we do here when we do the city's business and finally the legislation i think goes absolutely best in making sure that our community is as informed as possible when it comes to the business going on here in city hall. we have enhanced public information provision and requirements with respect to reporting financial non-filers and publishing campaign guide so there can be transparency when it comes to campaign fundraising and we also strive to make sure that we have full language access. so the legislation requires that we expand the access for non-english speakers for a san francisco tradition and i think it's in the cutting age to ensure that multilingual populations are informed of what's going on here in city hall. i want to thank

supervisor chiu for his partnership in working with our office in the last year to make sure we put together a comprehensive packet that i think speaks to the best ethical tradition that we all do in the business here in city hall. supervisor chiu, thank you, supervisor breed, supervisor tang i hope you will consider this legislation and hope to have your support because the public depends on it and expects no lesson ethical sessions will. thank you. >> >>president david chiu: thank you for your partnership on this and i want to talk about more details and open it up to initial public comment that we know will result in future hearings on this topic. but as our city attorney eluded to that part of this definition is the lobbyist is an individual who receives or is promised economic

consideration of $3,000 or more, because the language has been ambiguous on the ordinance to the there is a distinction between contract lobbyist to get paid any amounts to contact any city officials versus in-house employee lobbyist and we are considering whether it makes sense to have either some sort of low dollar level lobbyist as well as an em employed lobbyist to make it a little less challenging than it is today and the attorney issue which is a real issue with force many. at enforcement. at this time the current law that the duties by the attorney can only be created

by an attorneys and communicating with a party on actual litigation involving the city or the county. we also address the fact that permanent expediters are acting with city and government and all levels of government and we heard that it is important to have some transparency in this area although we do understand that we want to stharn -- ensure that there is a level of reporting because expediters have hundreds of contact with city staffers and we ensure feedback for transparency in a way that is efficient for folks engaged in that activity. as eluded to before our package also requires additional lobbyist training and auditing and training and public reports for issues

failed to economic interest and public guide to local campaign finances laws and also require major developers to disclose donations to non-profit organizations acti in the city as well as implement some language to know that full diversity of the city understand what these rules are about. with that, i know this is a large piece of legislation. colleagues, if you have any initial questions to us the city attorney or myself we would love to entertain that now, if not, open up to public comment. >> okay. public comment. >> i would like to bring up someone who is familiar with these issues.

>> good afternoon, i'm judge clinton cobb city san franciscans. i want to recommend strongly that you today recommend enactment of this ordinance to the full board of supervisors so that it maybe placed on it's agenda next tuesday. i have read the ordinance in its entirety. it has two salient provisions to protect san franciscans against city government corruption and bin alt. one is direct consultants, they are lobbyist and should be treated as lobbyist. this ordinance does that. the second is the developer self disclosure requirements with respect contributions to

non-profit entities which lobby at city hall and lobby on behalf of or depending on the position against they particularly act by the board or even an ordinance proposed to the board. very important. i think you should consider whether the reporting limit should be reduced from $5,000 to $1,000. these are entities like the san francisco planning urban renewal association which obtained almost all their funding from entities which have affairs in business with city hall and with city government or the other one of the housing

operation supposedly. let me just point out one tactical problem that mr. herrera and mr. chiu may want to address and that's on page 13 of the ordinance with definition of a non-profit organization which is based on the word active refers to any entity that within the past 2 years has attempted to influence city legislator administrative action. on the other hand at the subsequently there is a reference to any non-profit organization to whom it should be to which, a developer has made cumulative donations of

$5,000 or more since the date 1 year and before an application for environmental review occurs. i maybe missing something, but it seems to be an inconsistency between the two 2 years and the 1 years and i'm sure that's easily curable. finally i want to comment and commend the sponsor and the author for attempting to get a handle on the conduct of attorneys. attorneys historically have been able to hide behind attorney-client privilege while lobbying like a non-attorney does at city government. i think that's a major recognizable effort to face the fact that attorneys are not practicing law in too

many instances. so i hope you will make the appropriate motion and send it to the full board. >>president david chiu: thank you judge clinton. this is a major piece of legislation and i know there is additional comments people want to make today. we are not moving it out today and we hope to move it to march 15th and hope to move it out that day. if there is any public comment, please step up. good afternoon supervisors, i'm anita. i'm an attorney and i have monday oerd -- monitored the changes to lobbying since it's been

created. i'm against the proposed deletion of the word attorney which exemption a person from performing a duty that can be performed only by a licensed attorney. the legislation of torn -- attorney is a matter of state term and not by lobbying law. i also recommend the submissions of the bids to rfp to the city of this activity. this is exempt when the information is providing to officials specifically designated in a request to receive the information. if a law is enacted as proposed, every person who bids on an rfp everybody is considered a lobbyist. this is competition

forbidding citywide. currently an individual qualifies as a lobbyist is promised $3,000 or more. i think the language in the ordinance should be clarified to clearly indicate that you are talking about contract lobbyist in house employee lobbyist. in addition i think each lobby should have a financial threshold. most local jurisdictions impose some kind of financial threshold or hours threshold; long beach, los angeles, san jose. i don't think you want to report on issues of small matters. >>president david chiu: thank you very much. can i ask you

to submit your comments to us. >> we advocate reasonable regulations and procedures. >> okay. thank you very much. we look forward to those comments. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> what i would like to ask if we can continue this item to march 13th. >>supervisor london breed: before we do, i want to get some clarification on what this means for non-profit organizations? >> the only real change that we make here is that when developers are trying to influence decisions around environmental impact reports, message orp developers there is a requirement that a developer who makes a contribution more than $5,000 to a non-profit organization to disclose that. we are often lobbied by many individuals around various project and we

have non-profit organizations which approach us that have received contributions in the past. it doesn't say those contributions can't be made. it just that there is transparency around that so we can make-up our mind around that. >> for clarity, in many cases, i'm not aware. can you give me an example of non-profit organizations that actually lobby people who may receive contributions. can you give me an example of that? >> sure. >> organizations that would potentially receive financial support from an entity and would then ask the non-profit organizations. let me just say, i ran a non-profit and we got a lot of continue bugz from -- contributions from a lot of people. we did not ask, nor did we agree or ever

agree to reach out and lobby on behalf of any of the individuals who have given us contributions. so i'm just trying to understand the kinds of organizations this is targeting because my biggest concern is that i would hate to punish non-profit organizations especially non-profit organizations that are particularly doing a lot of incredible work but not crossing that line and becoming lobbyist which in many cases they don't necessarily have the time to do that kind of work, but more importantly, i just don't want to discourage the contributions from coming into these entities. i'm just trying to under maybe if there are examples or maybe if there are organizations or what have you that have this history or

that there has been a particular problem or challenge in this area, i would like to understand why this is being inserted to feel a lot more comfortable about that particular section of the legislation. >> so rather than singling out any one non-profit organizations. let me tell you about some non-profits that came and testified in support of these projects. i think the question was for many of us was to really understand the motivations around some of the individual organizations that come and testify in front of projects. the cpmc projects. there were many organizations that came to lobby around that. the washington project.

similar activities. >> can i get some clarity around that. was it because there was a commitment of maybe job opportunity or something beneficial to the community or potentially because they have received a contribution to their organization from this particular entity? >> it's unclear. oftentimes i think many of us would be surprised to see individuals representing non-profit organizations speaking out on behalf and i will list a couple other projects, the 555 project, hunters point and bayview project. i think the testimony is fair and inadequate. i think it's helpful to know if there were organizations that had received monetary considerations before their testimony. it's not saying those contributions can't

happen. it's just knowing about it. >> in some cases many of these entities receive public funds and their information is actually available to the public. so their contributions.990s and all the information that they are required to provide is basically opened and available to the public. again, i just want to make sure that this doesn't discourage contributions to non-profit organizations. i would be a little concerned and maybe we can discuss more of the details on what this could potentially mean before it comes back to committee. definitely we can continue this item for the next meeting which is scheduled for march 13th. >> to continue as amended? >> we have not made any

amendments. by the way, supervisor breed, i very much appreciate you raising your concerns and we'll think about it in my office and consider some of the issues you've raised. >> thank you. >>supervisor london breed: is there a motion to continue this item to march 13th meeting. great. it's been continued to the next meeting. madam clerk, anymore business? >> that concludes the items on the agenda. >> great. this meeting is adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

good morning and happy new year. >> happy new year. go 9ers. all right. (clapping) well, thank you all for km i know there are symso many departments ease our newly scorn or sworn in actually 4 times sworn in and our fire department and mary from treasure island and our commissioners that have been sworn in and about to be sworn in. today is a great day where we've got 44 appointees people who are upping upism in taking open this

fantastic responsibility in representing our city in being what i have also said we need con did you notice to run this fantastic city. so i want to say thank you your recreation and parks department some 16 different bodies for our city and county of san francisco. and let's say it runs the gambling bit of how we manage a great city like san francisco. you've got people joining in the arts community and people joining in our bay adversities committee representing a community that i think we have to pay attention to and we'll up the ante on ourselves to do more. you've got people in building inspection you've got folks that are going to top responsibility in fiscal entities, you've got

advisory council committees and preference and people that are going to help us entertain more of our adversity and resident whether in the arts or treatment we've got folks for the oversight for the puck promise when they provide for money important the bonds we see that the projects get down, health care and housing, local business which is a big farther of ours because we want to promote more of the success of a local business we've got people coming into help us and small business owner, of course, is treasure island. this is running the gambling bit of responsibilities our city has

taken on i want to personally thank alleyway all 44 of you joining me not only will you help share in the from successes but the flag we get from the public and i need more people to share in that responsibility (laughter) but i also say thank god thank you too because f this is one of the greatest cities in the world and for you to take up personal time, personal effect and sacrificing sometimes with family and a friends is credible. this is what makes our city special. you look at all the city's and great cities it depend upon their citizenry to bring out the best of our resident to hear and

be those effective conduits. i'm going to ask you to pay attention to the responsibility you occur in our bodies of work but pay attention to issues looish like affordability and housing and people being hurt or the folks on the streets or the need to produce a better health plan and health care. all the things that make our city great no matter if you sit on entertainment or arts paying attention to the quality of life for everyone is important. for me it's about collaborating and you be thinking freely. this need not be your issue but if you pay attention you'll find of the conduits whether you're fire or local business you'll

find the conduits that make the collaboration better. thank you for thinking outside the box and thank you for being responsible citizens that take up the cause for all of us. let's go and precede and if i can i would like you all to stand. and when you raise our right hand i would like you to repeat individually each of our names and the entities upon which you are about to enter for this fantastic responsibility. so i ask you to please join and raise our right hand after i please repeat your name and the committee or body you'll be joining. i >> i state your name.

>> thank you likelihood and clearly. >> repeating. >> ed. >> jamie hope and citizens committee. >> (inaudible). steven adams soft story commission >> loudly. >> paul. >> ken arts division.

>> harland kelly regional finance. >> leslie. >> lee row housing authority commission. or not advisory council. >> bond oversight. (inaudible). faye >> be (inaudible). rubin santana advisors >> joan i didn't advisory committee and a rebecca ryan's sense oversight bond. >> entertainment commission.

>> bayview citizens advisory committee. >> (inaudible). theodore miller >> james mccray junior building inspection commission. >> all right. >> do solemnly swear. that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies foreign and domestic that i will bear true faith and alliance to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california that i take this obligation freely without any

mental restoration or purpose of evaluation and i will well, and faithfully discharge the duties about which i'm about to enter and during the time as i hold the office of for the city and county of san francisco. congratulations and thank you very much >> happy new year everyone. thank you (clapping)

>> good afternoon, everybody let me please call this meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission at the 1:40 p.m. sfgovtv requires you to speak into the microphone otherwise the public can't hear our discussion. call roll >> commissioner president courtney. commissioner moran. commissioner torres. conditioning and commissioner vietor are on their way a you tell me 3 is the approval of the minutes from february 11, 2014. commissioners >> move to accept. >> any public comment on the minutes of