campaigns who may be fairly naive or new to the process. and i don't know if that is a question for you, or for you, mr. st. croix. >> there is often, an understandable feeling on behalf of candidates, that run and are not elected that they go through all of the rig ors of the candidate and all of the difficulties of understanding the myriad of laws and, we finally frequently just don't want it deal with that process, any more. they would like to just sort of shut it down and walk away from it and unfortunately, they can't do that, there is obligations that they encure to themself and there is a certain frustration level because people don't really how complicated it can be to run for office when they initiate these effort and so

unfortunately, you know, in situations like these, really, are too bad, because if we could have worked with this person, and maybe, there would be one count here in stead of six and possibly none, if they had paid off their debt and cleared out their bank, before that first filing deadline that they missed, you know, we take it retroactively terminate and that would have been the end of it but those obligations do exist and we are pretty clear in the training that the election day is not the end of the campaign. and for example, the public finance, candidates they have even more obligations and so we have to be sure that these folks know what they are, and but it is that syndrome that i just described that contributes a lot to this. >> understandable. >> and the other thing that i would say and what is the number, and it is 9,000 that the staff is recommended and

the 9,000 penalty, is that right. >> yes. and if you will allow me to try to add a rationale to a number. and in our last ruling there was 10,000 and we got to 2,000 and we somehow talked ourselves through that that we got there. and we have 9,000 here and i am thinking someone who did not follow a regulations, and in the fliers that you put out, if you are asking about harm, how many people were harmed, meaning that they could not read that form that they otherwise, could be able to read and be more informed, and from that harm, we made this determination? and for this particular one, there were 6 counts, and i understand, but then i think

about how many people were harmed along the way and who is to define harm and how far-reaching that goes, but this is this one individual's failure to file, over and over and over again. and, to in the absence of any other rationale, that we could apply to a fee, at least i see that there was a balance of $2300, at that time. in which case, i am not sure how we came to 1500 dollars per and maybe you want to say a word about that. >> so i looked at past settlements again where the people cooperated with us on these kinds of violation and it was in that $500 range and because of the effort of going through and going through the process, we thought that three times that was appropriate. and however, i said at the beginning for you to consider that in the majority, and the vast majority of the cases like this, when someone is cooperating with us, they could have terminated at the first

filing that they didn't file. the issue of we don't know how she resolved this debt and we don't know if she raised more money from people to do it, we don't know if she took on loans to do it, it is unclear, i agree that the public harm is probably very minimal. and this respondent and her campaign and she was unsuccessful and did not run again. you know, there is a fine structure in place for these, however, you cannot assess the fine until the filings is filed, and so there is a cap, but the limit would be the amount of activity on the late filing, so let's say that it was a year late, right? and she raised $6,000 but she needed to pass that debt, you could do $6,000. and if there is no activity, there is a different cap, it is much lower. and so you could look at it that way, but because these are never filed, we don't know, that answer. but, that is where i came up with that number and just

looking at the effort that was put into this, opposed to people who are cooperative, and because this happens. and the people, and generally the people who once we contact them will work with us to resolve it. >> i guess from all of that, then, i was just thinking, about that, and these counts, these six counts, at $500 is close to what your ending balance was in 2011. >> although, i am not sure that the ending balance necessarily has a correlation. >> it has no correlation, and i said in the absence of any other rationale and there is rationale and it is consistent on what has, and it was asked in the amount of cooperation, and other mitigating factors that were there and aggravating issues as well and i understand that you have applied that to

it. >> is there a motion to accept the staff's recommendation to find a violation in the amount of 1500 per count? >> i move it. >> second. >> all in favor. >> public comment? >> we did public comment, but... >> you are right, i am sorry. >> we did have a lot of discussion after the first public comment, is there anybody that wants to give public comment on this item? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> that passes 4-1. >> the next item on the agenda... >> we don't need the stenographer any more. >> thank you. >> the next item on the agenda is possible discussion and action relating to a complaint

received or initiated by the ethics commission. is there a vote, is there a motion to go into closed session to discuss possible litigation as plaintiff. >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? >> hearing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> hearing none, that motion passes we will go into closed session. [closed session] >>

>> motion to keep confidential. >> motion >> second. >> public comment. >> you are going to entertain a motion keep your deliberations confidential? >> yes. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> hearing none, the motion to keep the deliberations relating litigation of the plaintiff, confidential, passes, 5-0. >> the next item on the agenda, is evaluations of the executive director.

>> if there is a motion to go into closed session? >> is there a motion to go into closed session, to discuss the performance evaluation of the director st. croix, it is a personnel matter? >> okay, public comment? >> wait, i think that we need to, hear if there is a motion. >> i will so move. >> okay >> public comment? >> you need a second? >> did i not, is there a second to that motion? >> i will second it. >> okay. >> assuming that you are having a closed session, i just want to say that the executive director continuing to do a good job, under difficult

circumstances, the fact that you don't have enough resources to do the things that you want to do, that need to be done, i don't think is directly the result of the executive director. i think that it is fine to set performance goals, and to check in with the director on achieving those goals, but, the question of resources to accomplish your tasks is really a budgetary matter. and i just wanted to make that clear. thank you. >> all in favor of going into closed session to discuss the personnel matter of the department head's performance? aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> i think hearing none, that motion passes. 5-0. we are in closed session.

>> that motion passes 5-0. >> the next item on the agenda is the possible action on the minutes. >> any, just a procedural. >> yes. >> can you still vote? >> you have to. >> i move that we adopt the

minutes as written. >> public comment in >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. >> hearing none, that motion passes. executive director's report. >> i will make this quick. you have an attachment that shows the tech community comments on our new ballot measure dash boards, i want to add that we sent them to the other california commissions in san diego immediately set out to copy in and think that it is fantastic, and we are also sending them to jurisdictions outside of the state and seattle has moved a copy of it as well, and so i tried to help them out and so there is a lot of buzz in the tech community. >> and the only other thing is that i wanted to say, is, we are moving right along in implementing the new lobbyist rules and that is coming along

on schedule. >> great. thank you. >> public comment on the executive director's report? >> the next item on the agenda is items for future meetings? >> at a recent meeting, commissioner hayon asked for an update on the (inaudible) requests and so i went back a year. and put these out, just so you guys have a history of what has been out there. and it is not really a discussion item, it is just that you wanted to know. >> yes, that is very helpful. >> i will give you one. >> thank you. >> sorry. >> oh, one other thing, the sunshine memo that he mentioned earlier, jessy going to give you a copy, this is on next month's agenda, and it is kind of irony that he said that we should not have given it to sunshine without considering it first. if we considered it first without giving a chance to comment, they would have been

upset. so, we gave it to them earlier, and i think last week, and we were going to have this on the october agenda and they asked us, until they have a chance to look at it and so, it will be on the november agenda. and we did extend the consideration a month, and we don't intend to extend it beyond that. >> and you will include it in the november packet as well. >> yeah that is a draft of what we have so far, and as mr. st. croix said, we provided it to the sunshine ordinance task force for their review and i went to that meeting and i went to a subsequent committee meeting and so they are talking about it and give me some feedback and then they are going to provide feedback at the meeting in november and then we also did distributing it to the department heads. and so, the ideas is to get this out to everybody, and get everybody's feedback, and as you will see in the memo, it is

just a general, memo about primarily, procedural issues and referral issues that we have been kind of wrestling with at least since i have been here in the hopes that we can take a look and come to some, con census as to how we are going to treat these issues going forward so that in the future we are get to the meat of the issues without dealing with a lot of procedural stuff. >> is the idea that the memo could change, based on feedback, or are we going to be discussing it as currently drafted? >> yeah, i mean that i would think that it is probably going to be mostly what it is right now, but, based on any if there is any feedback, why we might tweak it a little bit, obviously, and we have obviously extended the invitation for folks to send comments to us and the commission's consideration. >> other comments? >> david pilpal, speaking as an

individual. the task force did have a brief presentation by jessy at the august, no at the october, the early october meeting and then, in part, at my suggestion, sent it to the committee where there was further discussion last week and i think that it is back at the full task force next week, and so the task force and the sunshine advocates will have an opportunity to review it and provide comments, prior to the commission hearing it. so i think that was the intent and that is under way, and i spent some time with jessy on it, beforehand and i think the input was helpful, so, i hope that we have a good discussion, next month. >> great, thank you. >> also, i should note, in terms of future actions, there is an interested persons meeting november 10th, and 13th,; is that correct?? >> yeah. that is true.

>> on, well, proposed changes, thank you, david. >> proposed changes to (inaudible) we are looking for community and the public and etc., regarding third party reporting. and then also, disclaimers, and then a couple of the items that we talked about earlier this year, about amending the ordinance to take those out, and the unconstitutional provisions. >> so, between those two issues, i think, the commission staff is doing, at the out reach, work and so the people have a chance to review the things and discuss, before it gets to you, rather than just have to deal with things, so things are going well, thank you. >> is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> none. meeting is adjourned.

leaders. >> hi everyone i'm patrick the director of earthquake safety forever for the stoifbl and we

have the ryan white fair to teach people about the made sure soft story ordinance and connect them with the services they need you can save thousands of lives and if those buildings are rooiftd people will be allowed to sleep in their own beds while the city is recovering. >> we're here at the earthquake ryan white center for people to comply with the ryan white or do a ryan white on their property to connect with the resources they need. i came here wondering what to do

as a owner of an apartment building moderate to comply with the must rules that went into effect last year >> we don't want to go to 10 different events people said so we advise people of the event. so we try to be incentive not everyone is going to be able to come 0 so this fans the afternoon and the einstein >> i've decided to be here it's amazing to see all those people's here it's critical to be prepared and to recover from disasters as finishing as possible. >> i've been to a lot of shows

and this one was a trufk turnout a. >> since the structure the building represents the super structure the lower part of this particle on the buildings on the corner they shack quite a bit. >> so for the floors above as shaking that top floor is fog go-go have no more mass and we saw in 1984 more structure destruction where we're ryan white this by adding a steel frame typically you want to brass in both directions and see how strong the building is. >> we've adapted a thirty year implementation program i worry about that was a retrofit requirement this is what we do

to mitigate the shom and have's evacuation for the people and our partners. i had questions about what kind of professionals are involved in this i want to start to put together a team of people to help me get through this. i'm a structural engineer and i'm thrilled at the quality of the contractors and engineers >> we've taken one civic awesome and put all the vendors in one place. >> you have financing and engineers and contractor and they come here and every we're rebuilding are that the office of the city of administer and the depth thought i environment

and other partners. >> all those things one little piece of a resilient piece of - >> and i felt more positive about things i thought about how to pay for this. >> we didn't want to have one financing option it didn't work. >> we found information about financing they are different options for different types property owners. >> we've seen them offering financially and a pool of styles for a complicated way of saying they'll be able to pay back their loans over the next two years.

>> we have 3 options and secondly, to get a loan for the ryan white and the third becoming in the past program participants in that. it is encouraged along coastal easier where we have set time like sand and a high water table to a cause the sand to shake i'm going to get this visitation on the same bridge you'll see the water come to the surface this knocks the foundation over and pushes out the ruptured pipeline >> it is intimidating i'm talking to people as a layman

who needs help. >> this is a difficult process for people to navigate we're only focused on outreach so we've got the informational and we've spoken to many different owner groups and community groups all across the city. >> outreach is critical for the retrofitting program the city has to get out to the community and help people said what they have to do and do it and raise finances so this program is an advocate and resource for the community. >> so why not skip to the theme. foremost and most to come we've been presenting community

meetings and going face to face with community owners and helping people understand what to do >> you may be wanting to know about the sf green but this will allow you to have is a loan for the property so if you have the property the loan will be summoned by the new owner and this is pay back for your property taxes and the low rates this is a fantastic option. >> i'm in favor of the program obviously we're going to have a earthquake this is from an investment stewardship. >> after a few minutes with folks even if you don't agree you understand the concept. >> we've talked about being able to do this now we're going to be forced to do this it's a

good thing but to pay for it. >> it's not only protecting their property but every dollar is for mitigation it truly is protecting our investment overall the city. >> it's the right thing to do. you can look at the soft story building and theirs like the buildings that collapsed in the earthquake and your shufrtdz to see this >> people are getting caught to get this done and if people can find a place in our homes of shelter it will keep people in their homes. >> together we'll work out of getting out of 0 disaster and

making the community bringing back to what we love. >> as a level of folks we've talked about we make recommendations to make everyone mitigated their soft story problems no other jurisdiction has tried to tackle this ordinance and we're set to have our program complete by 20/20. >> the quality of the people are here because of the leadership. >> it's a great conversation statewide how to do this and i can only stress this enough if we didn't have the community of the san franciscans that are concerned people, you know, talking about our financing is

options and our engineering requirement if you altercated all our work it's consensus driven to provide options we don't have one path but one relative for people to get there. >> it's been an excellent consumption of the services i think i'm going to need if i go through this yeah, i'm very >> director brinkman director heinecke is ex