>> welcome to our regular meeting -- we'll wait for sfgov-tv. so, welcome, this is the regular meeting of the government and audit oversight committee. i am supervisor katy tang. chair breed is out of the state. to my left is supervisor david chiu. our clerk is erica major and we'd like it thank jim smith and jesse larsen at sfgov-tv for staffing this meeting. madam clerk do you have any announcements? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. item acted upon today will appear on the march 25th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> all right, thank you. and madam clerk, can you please call the first item? >> is there a motion [speaker not understood]? >> i'll make that motion. >> all right. motion to recuse supervisor breed from our meeting today. >> item number 1 is an ordinance amending the campaign and government conduct code to expand the definition of a lobbyist; expand the definition

of an officer of the city and county; expand the list of reportable lobbying contacts; hold employers and clients of lobbyists jointly and severally liable for violations of this ordinance committed by the lobbyist on behalf of that employer or client; enhance lobbyist training, auditing, and record-keeping requirements; require public reports about city officials who fail to file statements of economic interest; require a public guide to local campaign finance laws; require permit consultants to register with the ethics commission and file regular disclosure reports; and require major developers to disclose donations to nonprofits active in the city and county of san francisco. ~ lobbying regulations. >> all right. with that i'll turn this over to supervisor david chiu, the author of this ordinance. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank you and this committee for having a second hearing on our ethics reform package. and let me just make a couple of comments at the outset about this legislation. in my first term in office we moved forward a number of pieces of legislation around online filing and reporting electronic filing of campaign information and updating of our conflict codes, but we have certainly heard over the years that there are many other reform that we ought to make in the area of our ethics laws. we've heard the frustration from the public about wanting to know more information. and from my perspective i think it's important for us to move forward with a package of reforms really to help bolster public confidence in our public institutions, to help public officials make better decisions, and at the end of the day i want to emphasize

that this reform package is not about saying that activities that end up influencing government shouldn't occur. simply saying we're trying to emphasize transparency and we're trying to make sure as justice brandeis once said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant for open government. we have probably about a dozen different reforms that we've included in this package. what i'd like to do is summarize a couple of the key areas, mention some of the recent amendments that we've made in the version that we have in front of us. and then also, madam chair, what i'd like to do is i'm not going to ask for this committee to move this out today. what i probably want to do is ask for this to move at the call of the chair to a future committee hearing because we are still working on some additional amendments to address some of the issues that have been raised as well as some new ideas that have been presented. so, let me go through a number of issues. first of all, in this package it would require lobbyists to do more trainings around the

rules that govern lobbyists, to file certification that trainings have occurred, to keep more records of lobbying for up to five years, a requirement of additional audits of lobbyists, and a record keeping requirement of invitations that lobbyists have made ~ for fund-raisers that they may hold for public officers. we also, to increase accountability for public officers, we have found that there are still too many individuals who are supposed to file form 700s that alert the public as to potential conflicts of interest who have not yet filed those form 700s. so, we have requirements around requiring the ethics department to provide more accountability for public officers who have not stepped up in that area. there are a number of pro he visions around public education to require that there be guides that the ethics commission puts out for campaign donors, to require that ethics rules be provided in information other than in languages other than english. and then the heart of a lot of what we're doing is really to

try to get at activities around lobbying. and so, first and foremost, the draft of the legislation we have in front of us would eliminate the exception for attorneys, although it does clearly state that there is nothing in this ordinance that should be construed as an attempt to regulate the practice of law. and this is about as narrow as we have been able to make the attorney exemption. we also add a duty for officers to cooperate and assist in the investigation and the understanding of our ethics rules. it would hold employers jointly and severally liable for the conduct of lobbyists that are acting on their behalf. and then i'll also mention, under our lobbying rules the degree to which lobbyists are or those we're trying to influence the process interact with city hall has been, frankly, a vague and difficult to enforce standard. it had been a standard of $3,000 in three consecutive months and what we have found

is that that is often difficult to prove and difficult to investigate and enforce. what we have pro he posed in our ordinance is that we create clearer distinction between lobbyists that are contract lobbyists, really outside actor acting on behalf of a particular interest, and then employees that are in-house to those lobbyists. for contract lobbyists, they would qualify as a lobbyist if they get paid for lobbying services and have one or more contacts with the public officer in any calendar month. for in-house lobbyists they would qualify if they have more than five contacts in a calendar month. and i think that is a much clearer standard for us to use. i will note it has been brought it our attention that this could capture nonprofit organizations, 5 01 c. organizations or organizations that have fiscal sponsors ~. particularly those organizations that are representing lower income, fixed income or moderate income

individuals who are really advocating for disadvantaged communities, it would capture them under that rubric, and that is certainly not the intent of our legislation. so, we are working on an exemption in that area. i also want to mention another aspect of our legislation which deals with permit expediters. we all know that there are many individuals that are helping projects move through the process, and we have requirements around registration and disclosure of though interactions. we're still working on some amendments in that area to make sure that we're not providing overly onerous and burdensome requirements and paperwork for those individuals that would now be required to disclose their activities. and also i plan to move forward an amendment to make it abundantly clear that nonprofit organizations, affordable housing organizations, and others that are building housing, that they be permitted to do the work that they need to do given that as a city we

really want to -- we all have an interest in seeing that activity expedited, that the expediter requirements not apply if those instances. so, i wanted to just layout again where we are with the current draft as well as some of the amendments that we are considering. one last area i want to mention, there used to be a category of what were known as expenditure lobbyists. really, individuals or entities that were sending out mailings or otherwise spending a lot of money to try to influence city actors in the public before a measure heads to the ballot or are otherwise going through the process and we're looking at adding some additional requirements in that area as well. and i want to thank friends of ethics for bringing that to our attention. but with that, madam chair, unless you have any questions, i'd love to open it up to public comment and, again, as i said before, we do have an amended version in front of the committee today. but we will be making more amendments to this and hopefully bring this back to committee at the next meeting or two meeting from now. >> all right, thank you,

supervisor chiu and thank you for taking the time to incorporate additional changes. so, with that -- >> i'm sorry, i for got one area i wanted to mention. there was also a set of requirements we had in our ethics reform package that would require ~ developers that were involved in major environmental impact reports to disclose contributions of $5,000 or more to nonprofit organizations in, before, or after a major e-i-r. and supervisor breed had raised some issues around that. and, so, we are looking at how to ensure that this is not just about contributions to a nonprofit organization, but really any -- any organizations or entities that are recipients of contributions that then potentially influence the process. we really want to make sure that it's that type of developer activity that we just want to understand and have some transparency about. so , we're working on some amendments in that area as well. >> all right, thank you,

supervisor chiu. and with that, i'd like to open it item up for public comment. speakers will have two minutes. ~ this item up good morning, supervisors. i'm anita mayo from the law firm of [speaker not understood] shaw pit man. i submitted extensive written comments to you which i will highlight. one, thank you for adding the new section 2.107 which clarifies that attorneystionv who are solely practicing law will not be subject to the lobbying law. ~ two, restoring the public bidding exemption was also a positive step. three, opposing the legislation and reporting for the lobbying of small matters, most lobbying laws including san francisco's current law have thresholds. the proposed amendments have a threshold for employee lobbyists, but not contract lobbyists. both categories of lobbyists should have thresholds. four, because of the complex nature of large development projects that are subject to the requirements of the

california environmental quality act, contacts made in connection with complying with c-e-q-a should be exempt. lobbying laws typically do not require disclosure of contacts mandated by law. five, a single contact in any amount of compensation will require a permit consultant to register and file monthly reports. this will create an undue burden, increase costs, and slow down the permitting process. other less burdensome options are available. six, developers and not others have been unfairly targeted to disclose their contributions to nonprofit organizations if those organizations have lobbied city hall on any matter within the past two years. even if the matter is unrelated to the developer's project. and there is also no requirement for those opposing development projects similarly disclose their donations. it is unfair, 7, it is unfair to charge a client or employer with the violation of the lobbying law when the violation was committed solely by the lobbyist. and finally eight, former

elected officers and department heads who lobby without pay should be required to register and file reports due to their continued influence on city officials and staff. thank you. >> thank you. and i appreciate you putting this in writing. this is -- we will certainly take a look at this. >> all right. is there any other member of the public who wishes to comment? good morning, members of the committee. my name is peter co-not with the council of committee housing organizations ~. we're a coalition of 22 member organizations in the nonprofit community and we're just part of a very broad array of the advocacy community in san francisco. ~ cohen very heart ened to hear supervisor chiu there was not no intent to sweep up nonprofits on this and happy to work on some of the specifics of that language. just to reiterate, the importance of advocacy and

public policy work particularly for [speaker not understood] that i'm working with low-income and fixed income, moderate income residents is critical to san francisco. i mean, this is how we've shaped, frankly, some of the best public policy in the country, is by very rich tradition of civic engagement. and it's important that we recognize that and don't show that in any way. so, again, thank you for working on some changes and we'll look forward to the amendments themselves. >> thank you. supervisor, calvin we will shall, san francisco clearinghouse, 501(c) (3). i would like to follow on with a couple of remarks about the already rather high bar that the city requires nonprofit contractors with the city to meet. that is not applied to, for example, for profit contractors. if you are a nonprofit contractor with the city and county of san francisco, you must open up two of your board meetings to the general public,

advertise broadly, and conduct those board meetings open to the public. no such requirement is made of any for-profit entity. second, administrative code chapter 79 requires that any city funded affordable housing development, health or human service that is proposed for a specific or general location in san francisco, before that allocation of funds can be made, must have a public hearing. ~ in that neighborhood around that site. this is in addition to any public hearing requiring approval processes. these are just two examples -- excuse me. these are not required, such hearings are not required. for for-profit entities providing the same is he advice. a for profit child care center

does not have to hold a public hearing before it seeks its approval at the location that it is thinking of putting a child care center whereas a city funded one does. the supervisor chiu's willingness to go forward and taking a look at the rich tradition of advocacy by nonprofits in this city, the rich role played by nonprofits in forming health and human service, and affordable housing policies in this city is greatly appreciated and we look with keen anticipation upon being able to reach an agreement with the supervisor and the board of supervisors exempting nonprofits from its [inaudible]. >> thank you. good morning. i'm jonathan vernick, i'm the executive director of baker places, celebrating nearly three decades with the organization. and one of the things that i've had an opportunity to do over

the years is, starting way back during the aids epidemic and since in terms of providing adequate residential treatment sites for substance abuse, for mental health and so forth, is to work closely with board of supervisors often in an educated manner so that since our folks have kind of on the ground, we can provide information about the kinds of problems and issues ~ that the city is facing that supervisors themselves might not be aware of. i've always found that dynamic to be productive and useful and ultimately it helps to shape city policy. the so-called san francisco model, for example, for the treatment of people with aids came largely from the community of activists and collaboration with the supervisors. so, i was very pleased to find

supervisor chiu's office accessible to our conversations about excluding nonprofits from lobbying, which is really not what we're involved in. we're engaged in a conversation which we think is in the interest of the people of san francisco and look forward to the final piece of legislation that comes forth. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other speakers? good morning, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood] and i work at [speaker not understood] collaborative which is part of [speaker not understood] clinic. i'm here to voice opposition to the [speaker not understood] in its current form and i appreciate president chiu working on amendments. i just wanted to give a brief as to how we work with tenants who live in single room occupancy hotels in tenderloin

and south of market, what we've done before. this decision was in place before that in its current form, we wouldn't be able to get better legislation for bed bugs and better legislation for [speaker not understood] which is the fundamentals and it basically improves quality of life of residents who live in single room occupancy hotels. and also actually the way the city -- it had helped the city to enforce better habitability rules for the landlords who do not do better practices with the habitability. so, we are looking forward, supervisor chiu, to work with you on improving and so that nonprofits are exempted from this. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public? good morning, supervisors and audience. my name is ace washington. i'm better known as ace in your face. i'm here as ace on the case.

i'm here to just basically speak for the poor and the very poor people. as a person that's been around for 25 years longer than most of y'all and a few of the audience or most of them may feel they've been here that long, i'm speaking from the perspective and appreciating what you're doing on the city government thing. i've been studying city government for a number of years. there's been misconduct not only with one department. there's a number of departments. i will not speak on it right now because i have an opportunity to speak at [speaker not understood]. what i'm saying is i praise you, supervisor, for doing it because it has this city -- supervisor, this is your first term here -- has been operating in i'll call misconduct situationseses for a number of years and has not been checked by no one, not even at the state level. but here we are in a new era where we have redevelopment agency [speaker not

understood], i hear it might be coming back. housing authority with new reenvisioning. and city government has gotten too big here in san francisco for us to [speaker not understood] the poor, the people that have not been served in so many years. and here we have this explosion of the boom of the economics. but we a african americans have been swept under the rug. i'm going to use the race card right now. [speaker not understood] people are talking about now with low-income, the very unfortunate. we here have declared that there needs to be what you're doing enlighting the city government. i would appreciate and ruest that you ask help, ask the state department or even the justice department to knock on wood and say what's going on with the department heads and what the hell is going on? i have an opportunity to speak here, but i commend what you're doing. >> thank you. any other members of the public? all right.

with that, then, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor chiu, any other comments? >> just a couple closing comments. i want to thank representatives from our community-based and nonprofit organizations, particularly those representing our lower income communities and appreciate the productive dialogues -- dying dye log we've had over the last few days on this issue. again, just to make it clear, we had a vague standard for lobbying and as we have attempted to more clearly define that, the question has arisen of whom that would capture. and given that nonprofits have not had to register before under the more vague standard, it certainly was not the intent to capture them as we move forward. so, we'll be working on some language in the coming days and we'll circulate that and incorporate that in the next draft. and when that draft is ready, i'll ask for the chairwoman of this committee to calendar that either two weeks from today or four weeks from today, but again, look forward to the continued dialogue on this matter. >> all right, thank you, supervisor chiu. can i get a motion on this

item? >> motion to move this forward -- actually, i'm sorry. motion to keep this in this committee at the call of the chair. >> all right. without objection, so moved. [gavel] >> and, madam clerk, can you please call the next item, please 2a item number 2 is a hearing to receive updates from various city departments required to provide a response on the implementation of recommendation no. 4.2 contained in the 2012-2013 civil grand jury report, entitled "are the wheels moving forward? a follow-up to the 2009-2010 civil grand jury report sharing the roadway: from confrontation to concertificatization" and respond to the civil grand jury on the status of these implementations. ~ conversation >> thank you. so, for the following item for the rest of the agenda we are really following up on some of the hearings from our civil grand jury reports. this next one we're going to have neil patel from sfmta present and i think also bert hill from the bicycle advisory committee. you'll have five minutes to present and then followed by martha man gold from the civil

grand jury, also five minutes. and i just want to acknowledge today that we do have police chief greg here. thank you so much for your time. available to answer any questions as well antonio aguerra from the mayor's office. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is neil patel, liaison from the sfmta. i just wanted to provide a follow-up on a few items that we've been working on in the last sick months since we he last spoke. one has been around data. as you might know, we have done a tremendous amount of work and collaboration with the public health department on analyzing where and why pedestrian safety [speaker not understood] are happening. that work has now extended over into bicycle safety crash analysis. so, this week we should be finalizing a map showing our high injury corridor for bicycle crashes in san francisco. what streets they're happening on and what intersections are they happening on most. so, we're just going through

final internal review and should be able to sign off on that relatively soon. and that would dictate our work, our capital efforts in the coming years where we prioritize our safety improvements. we also have partnered with the mayor's office on the look twice campaign and this is a general safety message that goes out to all the people that are moving in san francisco at any given time. finally, we have been continuing our work on our large vehicle driver education. so, in january we convened our first working group of safety for truck drivers and people that are riding bicycles. so, that work is continuing and it really represents a large group of advocacy members, city staffers, planners, engineers, as well as trucking, members of the trucking industry. so, that work is really aimed at trying to understand why some of these crashes are happening between large vehicleses and bicycle riders and will forward a set of recommendations whether education enforcement and/or

engineering. so, those are the updates i have for you today. happy to answer any questions now or later. >> okay, thank you, mr. patel. and i also wanted to, just for the public's sake, remind everyone what recommendation 4.2 was, which is through collaboration with sfpd, bicycle advisory committee and sfmta, the city should build an enforcement safety campaign around the goals and recommendation -- previous recommendation, and alert the public to the sfpd enforcement plan that will follow. so, with that, representatives from the civil grand jury, looks like it is not ms. mann gold. ~ >> good morning, supervisors tang and chiu. my name is bert hill, i chair the bicycle supervisory committee. i want to thank you for bringing this to the attention this morning. i'd also like to thank commander and captain here for their help in what we're working on in it, as well the two civil grand juries who work extremely hard in developing

this. i was also asked a few months ago to come to this [speaker not understood] about note progress and very little was done. as you know, the bike plan [speaker not understood] one civil grand juries, evolved into two civil grand juries, they work in a spread. community wrote a letter to the superior court complaining [speaker not understood] what became 4.2 which is a carry over. i'm happy to report this morning we have made good progress in terms of enforcement relative to 4.2. i'll go through these real quickly. we from the grand jury, we picked up and we are working in coordination with the other groups. we're actually working on establishment of the safety campaign working group as recommended. we are developing what's called a ready ref. ready ref is something used by the california highway patrol. what it does is interprets the california vehicle code. it