the individual of who you are working for and if you have multiple contributers working for the same company and it will represent the company in its own box here and two of the three contributers who are opposing will actually work for the same company. >> we also show where the contributers are from. and so right now you can't see it because this is a map of the entire united states, but, actually the contributers are supporting measure h, and some of them are coming from new mexico some of them from colorado and 20,000 that are coming from there and then if we zoom in on san francisco, we can see that also a large amount of money is coming from around golden gate park which will make sense because measure eight relates to golden gate park. >> and just by clicking on a

different measure, they will rebuild the map and show where the money was coming from in san francisco or outside of san francisco, and this one was coming from morin. we are also showing the loans that are committees are receiving and so here is where we see, things that don't measure off and this is the half a million dollar loan and it has not been paid back. and we also revealed who the lenders are. >> and then the last thing that we show, are any in-kind contribution and so for instance, again on measure f, we have about $70,000 donated by the developer, and donate the employee time of $70,000 and so as the campaign and that is the ballot measure of dashboard and these are a lot east tore do the research, than looking at the data. and one of the problems with

the data, is ballot measure committees are required to change their names frequently when they receive, large donations they may become the top donor and so the names of that individual needs to go into the name of the committee. it is good for putting on the communications so the person reading the communications knows who the top donors are and it makes it hard to do the data research and so this solves our problem for the person who wants to do this kind of research. okay, so the last dashboard this democracy label, and this is designed by professor leavitt, and he published it in a paper, confronting the impact of citizen's united in the yale law and policy review in 2010.

and so he tries to in this paper part some of the fears of corporate expenditure and one of the ideas is that the corporations will spend enough on speech to cause the voters to elect the candidates preferred by the corporations. and so yes, the question, is does the peach change the voter's minds? and so it brings up that the voters may, equate the breath of the support and may put more faith than is deserved or it is possible that substantial massive speeches are unstoppable electoral force. and so, he says that the campaign finance regulater will argue that the disclosure is what will combat these issues. but one thing that he points out is that the disclosure reports points out on the financial statements which goes to a central source and it is hard to filter out the noise of

those statements because there is so much on them. and they are complicated. and the voters don't necessarily have the time to look at those reports or look through all of that data. >> so he argues for the straight forward disclosure label that will be put on the communications that is modeled after the nutrition label. so he calls it the nutrition facts label. and his label is focused on facts that will be spending money effecting candidate races. what we did was we focused it on the ballot measure races. and but he argues that it will provide, or an alert to voters, and with a large speech is coming from a few entities so if you saw a label that said, and let's say that you received a mailer and said that it was supported by three people and you can assess that there is not a lot of popular support for this measure, and also the portion of financial support that is generated by the top x,

you know, five, contributers, for instance. and so you can see that if the majority of the money is come froming a few individuals. so in our version, we made a few changes which i will go over. and let's take a look at it. so on the side here i have a list of the committees that have failed as of the june deadline and what i can do is i can actually click on one of the committee and rebuild the label and show us who the top contributers are and how many supporters there were and the total contributions that are received and one thing that we changed and in the original version, they showed the percent from the top five and one thing that i thought was important, was you don't necessarily know if you list the top five contributers and if the top contributor and the

fifth contributor are contributing in the same week, and you might assume that they are. and that is not necessarily the case for a lot of these measures and in this one, we can see sean parker here contributed $49,000 of the total $72,000 and the fifth contributor talking on here, contributing $1,000, and just so happens to be on the top five but it is not really in any comparison to sean parker. and because we are doing this on a computer and not on a communication label, we built in this functionality and you click on the sean parker and you can run a certify sxfp it will google who is sean parker and he is a entrepreneur that co-founded nabster and just to say the web searches are only as good as they can be. but at least, it will give you a start on identifying some of

these people. and then we get to the san franciscans for the safe and affordable city and they have four supporters if you received a communication and had a label like that and it was closer to the election, it might send a warning flag. and so the campaign finance, dash boards, those are available now on our website, and those, again, focus on the candidate races and then the democracy, facts label is and those will be released after the first preelection deadline in early october, any questions? >> commissioners? >> any questions?

>> i have a couple, first of all, mr. massey, i think that this is really accident, ... excellent, and i think that the greatest tools to be able to see in real time it is and going to be a asset for the city. one is regarding the integrity of the data, what are we doing as a city or as an ethics commission to insure that the data that is being stored is being protected? and i know that you can download and it manipulate it, and what are we doing to make sure that it does not get compromised. >> nobody on the commission staff actually has the rights to modify the data. and we can assist, and buyers with completing the forms, but, once they submit it, it goes over to the net file system and

it is locked. and every city, in california, at this point that is doing electronic filing with the exception of los angeles is going through the same process. and so, they will not actually do anything to their systems unless they received the written requests from us. >> and so, is net file, responsible for maintaining the entegty of the data? >> yes. >> do you know what they do to insure that it is not hacked or compromised? >> well, first of all they keep an enormous number of back ups. and so, i am not particularly concerned about the integrity of the data in that we have so many snapshots of it, on top of that, where so many different component to it and there is the, actual filing itself, which we store the original electronic filing, and then there the data base of the transaction and so if anyone ever questions the transactions in the data base and you can go back to the source file that we received and we can log every

step that those filings take when they go through our system and even though if someone just hit in the electronic filing system just hit the submit button and don't go anywhere, we know that information. and so, i feel quite confident in the security of the system. >> okay. what about traffic? is it, or do you feel like it is equipped to handle the type of traffic that you would expect during a hotly contested election? >> (inaudible). >> our particular, dashboards? >> so the dash boards run on a distributed network, where the serve provider will not run into that problem. >> and net files, one of the things that we are paying for that we were unable to provide with the city build system, is that infrastructure to handle the filing deadlines, and when we are on the city system with one server and now we have you

know, a variety of servers, at a facility, to handle the traffic. so, this has not been an issue for us. >> and finally, has this been implemented anywhere else? so i have actually also be working with oakland and i have helped them get started on a project where they wanted to build the data visualizations for the mayor's race and they have two people on staff right now. so they actually got i community group in who did the remember sight work. but no, this state is not doing this and no other cities are doing this. what if anything are we doing to promote these new dash boards to the public? >> well, so, definitely with the democracy facts we are working with justin to help to promote this and you know, we are going to do all that we can

to get the word out. and while there is still a website or social media. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> public comment on item number three >> compliment the ethics commission, that that was a very good presentation and i am glad to see the democracy dashboard, i compliment you. and i have unfortunately used open data sf on a number of occasions and it is buggy. and so, if this is running on your servers and not theirs that would be encouraging. one of the problems that i had with the open data sf going into the city controller's vendor file, i would search for

rtz associates to find out how much they have been paid to develop a data base for the laguna hospital, and i only got from 2007 to 2014. and so, i emailed miss zumela. who was kind enough to track down the data from 2003 to 2007 and the reason that it had not shown up on the first time, was because the company had initially submitted data with spaces, between each of the letters in their acronym and later they stopped doing that and at other times they had, inc, following the name, and remarked to me in the private e-mail that that sort of

filtering was inexcusable, and the system should have been able to catchall of it. >> and report it, and right at the beginning. over the weekend, i was trying to use the budget feature on the open data sf and when i would go to the export to excel button, it dies and although i am glad to see the city moving toward getting some data sets on a control website, there are definitely technical hurtles that need to be looked for proactively. other than that i was impressed with your presentation. >> i am fwoeg to remember this day. >> we also enjoyed what we

heard here technology-wise. my only question is at the second window, i don't know if you can put it back up or if you unplugged it or what you did. yeah. i wanted to talk about the second window where you had the graph up that said undefined and you didn't know what the answers were there. and that bothered me a lot. and also where you had the graphic up where you said only 4 people voted or supposed some legislation, only four people. i am afraid that you would really try to change the minds of the voters, you know, and get into their head because they see that only four people voted for that. that that bothers me, quite a bit. but i would love to see this system put out into the communities before voting so that they could understand the voting better, this is an educational system and but those two areas that i hit on

needs to be tweaked and come forward and have full disclosure. and because, why are you having a graph, that says, undefined and it is almost as long as what the first one was? >> i would just point out that that graph is not ours. and it is the city's. and it is a list of contributions so it is not compiled by the ethics commission. >> it is just representing that... >> i see. >> i see, so when the mayor's staff presented that chart, of the contributions to the open data system, and they are talking about the countries that i see, as the number of data sets that the departments have been posting to the system. and one of their points was that there were a large number of data sets that had not been labeled. and so that was lafmly. >> why not? >> that was something that they wanted to correct. >> and so, the departments were posting information but they

were not properly describing the information. >> exactly. >> so, again, this is something that they are focused on correcting. and this was back in the spring shs when this came up, but they have been working on this. >> you are working with what they gave you, that sort of thing, right? >> well, yeah. >> i mean, basically. you are working with what they gave you. >> right. >> that was the chart that they presented. >> hopefully this commission can ask them to give them more and be more, you know, open toefrg. >> fully disclosed. >> thank you. >> next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on the annual report. >> before the commissioners discuss this, i just want to point out one addition that i made that you don't have. and a commissioner renne's

suggestion, where we have the future initiatives i added an additional bullet point, the commission agreed with several recommendations in the recent civil grand jury report and the work to implement these measures in the near future, and the review the progress made six months after the month of adoption and that is, i put it in there the commissioner's suggestion, but technically, this report ends in june, and that action did not happen, until august. and so it is outside of the scope of this report. and so, it is up to you folks if you want to leave it in. my concern was that we had just recently. there are things that they said that we will look into them and take some action and someone reading this annual report, will say where are those?

and that was my concern, i understand what you are saying that is the report ends of june 30th, and that action was in next year's report. >> i think that there should be some reference, and i think what you have suggested is fine. >> okay. >> and that makes sense to me. >> so, commissioners, hopefully we have all had a chance to review, the report. and my thought was that we would go, and we would have and go through the sections and if any commissioner had a comment, or a question we could address

it. and then, take public comment. does that sound reasonable? >> commissioner keane? >> i have first one thing to point out in regard to the mistake on dates. and that if we could correct that. on page 19. >> and having to do with the dates of my service. where it says, 2010, to 2, 2013, and that should say to, 2, 2014. and then also, where it says, 3, 20, 13, to 2, 20, 20, it should be 3, 2014. >> i apologize for that. >> we have review ited several times and even found a typo, >> that is all right.

>> if that change could be made? >> any other changes from the commissioners or the areas that you would like to discuss? >> i had some questions in the investigations and enforcement section beginning on page 12? >> particularly, i have some questions about the paragraph, or the first full paragraph on page 13, where it begins the ethics commission has the authority to investigate complaints? >> and my first question has to

do with the volume of complaints that were under review. it seems like there was a pretty substantial drop in the number of pending or new complaints that were under review by the ethics commission? do we understand why that is. >> i think for a long time, we had a backlog of complaints, and we spent a good portion of that year, trying to catch up with them. and did that. with a lot of older things that were pending. and so, some of those 146 probably had been held on from years, or a year or two or maybe even three before that fp >> okay. >> and then it says that 78 were resolved during the fiscal year and so that is 78 of the 99 that were resolved? >> right. >> and 63 of them were resolved because they were not within

the jurisdiction of the ethics commission? >> or that they determined that this was not enough to pursue a formal complaint. >> and so we only investigated 15 then, complaints? >> new ones, yeah. >> i am sorry. we no, let's, and when you, get a complaint before it is dismissed there is still a preliminary investigation and that would involve any evidence that is presented and in a review of what potential evidence might be out there. this could happen in a day or take a few weeks and very rarely it will take longer than that. >> okay. so then, of the 78 that were reviewed, 15 were went further than that initial review of evidence. >> that is right. >> and on average, how long does it take to address those

15 complaints that go past the initial, evaluation? >> i would say 3 to 6 months and some of them have taken years. >> on average, they take 3 to 6 months. >> i think so. katherine do you have anything to add to that? >> i think that, i think that the average is being a little bit higher than that and i think that it will be closer to nine. >> and so then, of the 21 actions that were not resolved, those were not ones that could be determined not to be within

the jurisdiction of the ethics commission, or warrant further action? or were those ones that the commission just was not able to get to at all even to determine which bucket they fell into? >> i am sorry, which one are you referring to? >> just doing the simple math here. >> it looks like there were 99 that could have been worked on. 78 were worked on. right? >> and either by determining that they weren't within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission and they were not warrant further action and they were more significant complaints that were ultimately resolved. >> right. >> so i want to know what happens to those 21 remaining? >> they are still pending. >> do they get rolled over into the coming year? >> correct. >> so when we are looking at this for next year, it is, is

that number, going to include the ones that were left over from the year. >> correct. >> any other questions on that section for the commissioners? >> i also had some questions on page 14. in particular, i had some questions about section 4.130, number four. and number four refers to the number of investigations the ethics commission conducted. and the answer is 0. why is that?

>> this section refers specifically to the complaints that are filed under chapter four with just the privatization and protection and we may have received the complaints that alleged certain violations of sections within that chapter. but, none needed the full investigation. >> so, what does that mean if they were not within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission. >> well it could be that there was no evidence or reason to believe that a violation of that particular section alleged occurred? >> when this refers to the number of investigations, the ethics commission conducted that does not include the investigations that were conducted but did not lead to a

what a formal complaint being prepared? >> and it, and it did not, and it did not lead it a formal investigation. so, it may have been in the preliminary review phase. >> and what example, a lot of the whistle blower retaliation complaints that come from the people who have never been city employees, and so that would automatically render it outside of our jurisdiction, and so i understand those, and do we know how many we received? >> yeah, within the... sorry. and i can see that. 21, were received. and so we determined that...

>> i see, so 18 were outside of the jurisdiction, and three were referred to the civil service commission. >> or either departments. >> what does i see, okay. i was confused by what number two was referring to. but i think that i am now following it. are the number of whistle blower complaints have they changed segly over the course of the last few years? >> i don't know. i don't, i don't... >> it looks like there was 19

the year before. >> from my memory it seems about the same. >> okay. thank you. >> any other questions from the commissioners on that section? >> i had one more under the advice and the opinions section. so this says that the commission is charged with interpreting and applying the campaign lobbying and governmental laws, under the jurisdiction and requiring requests for waivers and that it does and issues formal and informal advice on matters requiring interpretation. and then, we said that the commission staff is available, each workday