look at a few issue of our ordinance and this is a complex legislation that covers a variety of different topics and my office continues to work with our city attorney on a wide a n array of legislation. our city attorney has arrived, herrera, white, gibner and advocates for strong ethics and transparency laws. we have worked together for a number of was no put this packet together and attend this hearing to let folks know that we are kicking off this discussion and hopefully in the coming weeks we'll be able to have some clarity over a few remaining issues that are outstanding before we come back to this committee and ask for our committee to move this out to the full board. with that, i

would like to invite up our city attorney mr. herrera for some comments. >> thank you, mr. president and members of the board and thank you for the opportunity to come and spend a couple minutes to talk about this legislation forum today. first i want to thank and congratulate president chu for all of his hard work over the last year. you may recall that supervisor chiu and i introduced this legislation last year and at the time announced it was our belief that thises the most important ethics legislation to advance before the board of supervisors in its generation and i happen to believe that that remains the truth. we have painstakingly worked over the last year with supervisor chiu's office to put together the packet that you are

considering today really concedes the orange -- objective over this legislation. over the last year it has repeatedly demonstrated it's is the importance of promoting legislation that is in the best keeping of the ethical and the people have the confidence of the transparency. i think this legislation accomplishes that. i know we'll get a number of different views and discussions. make no mistake the broad outlines that supervisor chiu and i have to do needs to happen and we agree it's in the best 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 ] >> >>

>> the pledge of allegiance? >> president mazzucco i would like to call roll. >> please do. >> president mazzucco. >> present. >> vice president turman is in route. >> commissioner marshal? >> here. >> commissioner dejesus, in route. >> commissioner chan? >> present. >> commissioner kingsley is resigned. >> okay. >> and commissioner loftus? >> here. >> present. >> commissioner you have a quorum and also with us this evening is the chief of police,

and the office of citizen complaints. >> welcome to the wednesday march 5th rkts 2014, police commission meeting and please call line item nup one >> consent, calendar, consent calendar, occ document, protocol, quarterly report, 4th quarter, 2014, request of the officer ecummins to accept a gift of $100 from mr. bill larson thanking him for recent acts of kindness, he will donate the said check to the march of dimes organization. >> also a request of officers cummins, carew caraway and durkin to accept a $20 subway sandwich gift card for the mrs. halloran for the recognition of the officer's kindness toward in a family in need 6789 >> you have in your packet, the

occ document and protocol, and are there any corrections or concerns? >> no, corrections, but i just wanted to point out that i did notice that there are some documents that were late in production, or were not produced yet at all and i want to flag that. >> okay. >> as something that we want to monitor. >> and i see that we have the captain here so that we can work on that. >> okay. >> and with the reference to the request of officer cummins to accept a $100 gift that he will turn around and return to the march of dimes and the officers from apparently central station that are getting a $20 sandwich gift cards, i would like to ask the chief, could we avoid doing this and just having these officers just say no? >> well f they would like to have it, this is the process by which they ask to keep it. >> okay. >> and well, commissioners you have all of this in your packet, is there any questions

regarding the memo. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you very much. >> please call item number 2. >> general public, and the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. and not to the commissioners or the personnel. >> under the rules of order, neither the police or the occ personnel or commissioners are required to respond to the questions presented by the public or make a brief response. >> individuals commissioners and police and occ personnel, should refrain from entering into debates or discussions with the speakers during public comment >> please limit your comments to three minutes. >> good evening, hello, my name is michael and i am a gay

advocate and blogger. and i am here to talk about two things. and they both relate to the recent indictment of some police officers, and in october, of 2012, in this building, i mistakingly took a picture of a supervisor in a bathroom, within days, i had two sheriff's investigations on this case. the sheriff had one of the investigators coming to my house and i got e-mails showing that there was a big effort made by the sheriff to investigate the taking of a picture in a bathroom. within a month's time i was arrested. i had $25 bail set on my head for taking a picture. there is all range through so fast, the investigation, the indictment and, then the

prosecution, okay? took eight months to resolve. why does this case, move so quickly through the justice system and yet these rogue cops or alleged rogue cops are allowed to carry out a campaign against the residents in sros and it takes years to bring them to a count and finally indict them. there is something wrong here when all of the resources that can come in for someone after taking a picture and then the cops with get away with a lot of alleged crimes. in april of last year, i filed a complaint with the office of citizen complaints about lack of disclosure, by the chief, on his website, regarding some gifts. >> ten months later, i got a letter back finally, from the occ. acknowledging that they have received my complaint.

and they found some evidence, and they would like to set up a meeting with me. so i can go into the occ. and look at what they have uncovered. and we may eventually have a hearing between myself and the department. ten months, ten months, to investigate a relatively minor complaint about a sunshine matter and lack of disclosure at the police department website. that kind of delay is why it is one of the reasons that the police department and the occ have a real credibility problem with a lot of citizens in this town and it is going to take a lot more than a single press conference to say that the department is all shook up to regain some of that trust. and i asked that you consider expediting complaints with the occ, thank you. >> next speaker?

>> good evening. >> i hope that everybody is doing well. >> just to go real quick. listen, we all know how i feel and i hate crime, and terrorism and corruption and i love hard core law enforcement on all levels. so, you know how i feel, and you know what i want, and bring in the hard core law enforcement like i want, all right? and keep standing tall. >> okay, next speaker. >> ace? >> okay, how are you doing, sir? >> good, and i will mention to the chief in the hallway, i didn't come to beat a dead horse down but i did come to say that there is a good example and there are a few bad apples in every fixture of life and there are a few bad actors in the community and don't feel bad and i come mend everybody that is going forward with this issue. as you see here,vy