taken care of. why do we put in specifically the word, anonymous.? i don't see how that in any way isn't a problem? you haven't told us that adding of that term is really a problem. unless i missed something. >> i think he is saying and >> i may be mistaken >> i may be too. >> i'm not the brightest -- >> i'm struggling myself. i think what he is saying you could never in the situation within ie have major funding by an anonymous donor donor because you have to include the names of the top donors. >> right good soda spots to commissioner kean's question, this is certainly technical stuff. i think jesse's greatest of, but certainly beyond --

circumstances. >> [inaudible] >> yes. theoretically you can ever provision in here that dealt with anonymous donors and those anonymous donors were major funders which obviously people really want to know about. but the problem is, as people to exist and to be subject to disclaimer requirement they would've needed to already violated state law. so we would have a provision that is hearsay, look, if you already violated a state law that you need to disclose than requiring to put the disclosure statement on here. i guess jewish >> what we lose by that? >> you could do that but that's the situation. >> we obviously have a concern on the part of our citizenry about civil grand jury in regard to it. if we concede we don't lose anything let's put it in. >> i think if a civil grand jury is requesting a little bit different. i think they are saying anytime there's an anonymous donor that paid for any portion of the hangar, for

example. not necessarily one of the top donors, then you put on this statement that it was paid for and funded by an anonymous donors. so, it wouldn't be the top -- to them i say now? it would necessarily say the top two but anyone with anonymous then you would add a line here that says, basically some of the donors from this were anonymous. do i have that? >> autism was really -- >> the 503 sixes and so forth. with the committee for justice or whenever and we don't disclose on that >> so i mean this committee's name you would see and maybe they're generating to another committee but what's behind that you just don't know. maybe you find out later. >> okay but you heard mr. shannon say the situation in which the top two donors are anonymous for an ie could never

happen because lbm mission validation violation of state law. >> people have gotten very creative and when you start changing a lot of entities together chaining a lot of vanities together the money slide one to the other it can take a year two or three to unravel all that. the ads are running in real time. >> what i'm hearing -- -- >> at the federal level at the rack last cycle they really contributed to just an awful environment for people turning on their tv sets and listening to this kind of trash all the time. at some level you want to say, let's get that this course under control and little bit and get it back to some

civilized discourse. when with anonymous feeling there's really no checks and balances >> thank you. okay. were back on the anonymous? >> i'm thinking are from a different angle. it feels that were encouraging -- we are creating a provision for them in some kind of way. i just don't understand why we would? -- >> eucharist when this better price than others. >> [inaudible] >> could try to cut to the quick. there is no way in san francisco were in california that anonymous people will be funding [inaudible] expenditure that all those forms we talked about in provision .2,

[inaudible] expenditure that all those forms we talked about in provision .2, within 2424 hrs. of the miller being mailed, and be able to go on that website and see every contribution of $100 or more that was used to fund that mail appeared within 24 hours. so, to mr. commissioner kean's point to what the downside, the downside is not true it's inaccurate. it would make a mailer seem as if some anonymous people are funding that [inaudible] records in the possession which disclose every donor who's contributed. >> anonymous people could be funding it they did not meet the threshold. >> the threshold for anonymous donations, i think it's 25 or $99 >> certainly, there's an agreement saying were going to -- it's one dollar. if there is an agreement, under california state law that you have to disclose those donors any iffy samba radio check and use it for , curator trade association i

want to send out a mail piece. as soon as i write that check and there's an agreement, that's disposable at that moment. what's not disposable -- well, the threshold of $50,000 threshold a year is if there's a nonprofit that is sitting there that decides the bid adieu and ie and basically have a store of money and they're not taking it from anyone but the cumulative funds over the course of the year. they decide we are going to weigh in to send a mailer out. so, they can send a mailer out they have to disclose that they sent it out that they spent money on it and there's a $50,000 threshold at that point. after they meet $50,000, they have to go to some accounting to kind of figure out how they're going to attribute it to all these various funders they've had over the course of the last four years. but, -- so i can say not right. >> yes. but you know, the

example which jonathan referred to, the -- change was a very unique example which in the 14 year seven practicing political law was the first time someone really try to run the money through three different nonprofits and other large sum of money in to a campaign and you sell it happen. it basically cratered the opposition campaign. it was exposed within a matter of two weeks and a logout change to make sure never got happened again. i hope that was helpful. >> was that incident? >> it was with the gov. brown's proposition 30 campaign. i don't know the nonprofit. it was basically some nonprofit in virginia that funded a nonprofit in arizona which funded a political committee and then gave the political committee gave the money to an anti-opposition 30 committee.

as a one through four states in four different nonprofits without disclosing the true source of where the money came from. and it was litigated. it was dealt with at this green court of california before the election. within two weeks of the story breaking the supreme court dealt with it. it's a very serious issue. but i think our rules covered it. >> to what thank you >> okay, two other questions unrelated. so, we are also admitting the total cost of the mailing >> that's right for a mailer that's correct. >> why is that, just for because it's too much to put on a mailer? >> well, first of all because there's a distinct rule just for mailer so what were trying to do is streamline it and make

it a set of role for our alternate occasions. secondly, it's a question if particularly for referencing the ethics commission website will have a lot of not only just a campaign information but just the graphics. you know, we staff and in my experience have not found a lot of value in knowing how much the cost of that single mailer is. the value is knowing how much as a general matter a particular entity is spending. as opposed to on the one mailer that you get that's the pile like that. so, in the interest of making a standardized disclaimer, we said would just take out that is was the whole notice to voters. requirements. >> am i correct that, what you're doing oh, in terms of the type font, you're making the state requirement to be consistent whether san

francisco requirement to be consistent with the state? >> we are actually for members and for like small fires that sort of thing. were actually augmenting it a little bit because on the -- at the state level as 10 point font which is pretty -- is what it is. not that big. right now, for miller's ours is fort wayne 14 point font and you can see in exhibit it ends up taking a pretty substantial part of a mailer was sometimes quite small >> what is the state requirement for a mailer? >> 10 point font. >> i guess the question is we get all these things are coming on 14 point, why is that so significant? when we standardize it so that people know the state requirement they know the city requirement and we not have always coming in?

i should say not less than because clearly if they came in at 16 point you would in charge any violation. so it's not a mandatory font size. it's a minimum font size. it just seems to me just have one and let it go at that. >> certainly at the discretion of the commission >> i stop mr. bush is in my head but we dealt with this fort wayne point font issue and there seem to be a lot of concerns that tenant was too small and we went to 14 just to make sure that the people could see it. i'm not against going to 12. i think it's readable. i understand the concern that we have a lot of information on these mailers. but i'm a little concerned about going down to 10. >> any other comments or

questions than? on provision .3? >> i feel like i'm torturing everybody. >> no, this is very good. you did a fine job. >> is there a motion to adopt provision .3 or do we feel we need to do for this one? >> i will move it >> is there a second? >> second >> all in favor say aye. opposed. hearing on the motion passes five 5-0. thanks again to the public for your input was larry helpful as you could tell we could use some of the help he would.. excuse me provision .4.

>> position make for we cover the whole thing. i tried to these competence of as possible but there are little things like we moved one definition to a different section and this is just to say, okay, all these minor little technical things were approved as well. >> public comment? i'm going to take this as an opportunity to comment on provision .2. because this covers all the points. i did not discuss the vendor payment issue. i'm sorry that the vendor payment disclosure was going to be removed because knowing who the vendors are tells you about the relationship between a candidate were a committee and various community groups. so, let's say somebody wanted to pay friends the committee of ethics $100,000 through a mailer for them. there would no longer be disclosed not under

this provision that says vendor disclosures will not be paid. not be disclosed. so we strongly believe that vendors should not be removed from the law. >> perhaps we could add that to our augmented discussion for ? >> it's okay with me. >> to me, it's fine to adopt provision .4. i just ask that you be clear with us about what else, if anything, there was an identified. i understand it's a process that you later discovered by the let us know what is so that we are apprised. because what you're saying is there are things that you missed that are minor, mood, no matter unclear what you mean by persian board for.

>> is just other very minor -- i might not have said, for example, that we define district it in distribution to mean the day that the communication is viewed to read or heard which is like mentioned in the attachment but it's not any actual memo itself. so, things that are very sort of small but -- like we've done before >> yes >> this summarizes minor technical changes already presented to you. it's a classic labeling technique [inaudible] >> okay. is there a motion to adopt provision .4? >> so moved >> all in favor i'm not. opposed. hearing on it passes 5-0. commissioners, junior break? were going to adjourn for 5 min.

>> budget that we cut anything this coming year over the current year. there's a 1% contingency for the current year. in looking at what we are planning for staff in the long-term we determined that we want to enhance some of the responsibilities in campaign finance staff, given that a lot of our new electronic filing stuff, we have more data as the three more sophisticated. we anticipate will continue to do so. so, we want to through changing some responsibilities

with the lobbyist ordinance the campaign consultant ordinance responsibility summit enforcement staff to the campaign finance staff, were going to increase the level of as i said responsibility and with existing staff will see about getting some training and education to help them move up. when we hire new staff were going to alter the real comments of those positions so the more sophisticated to meet some of the needs that we expect in the future as we try to do more. additionally, we request would fund the bacon investigator position and we are hoping to get to new auditors. we do a certain amount of random audits every year and we [inaudible] public inuit -- audits are one of the best terms in terms of fighting corruption getting transparency. in an ideal world

we'd audit every campaign i don't think we'll ever get there but julie moore would certainly enhance enhance our capabilities. the were we to get funding for all three those positions would also effectively use up all of our workspace. there will be places for anyone else. so, if we achieve that goal in the future, if we want to again [inaudible] grow the staff would have probably have to work with the city to find a new residence for the commission. we went through that once before. it's a project that runs like three years. but certainly something that might be helped in our future. then, finally, were looking to get the money to pay for the migration of form 700s that are filed with it about. basically, collected officials by minutes of members of boards and commissions all file with

us and starting dispatcher was all electronic good once they file those forms are immediately available to the public. there's about 3000, maybe a little more city employees should also file these but they file them on paper with their departments. so, what we ultimately want to do over the next 200 years is transition those people to walk filing of trenton weight with us as well. it's going to be a big undertaking. because all of those all right data will be stored within the file -- is an additional charge for those people in that information. at some point the f ppc is going to standardize electronic filing format for form 700s but have not done so although they plan to do so in the near future. once they do that, that file will then use that format to develop a more searchable format for form 700. eventually, you can write helpful, by looking for specific people. there'll be other information in their that

the search commitment to the process not want to happen right away. so, that's basically where proposal is. staffing has always been our primary concern. so that's the recommendation i make for the commission to cement. >> questions or comments from the commissioners? >> i'm happy that you're pushing for filling of the vacancies. [inaudible] bacon too long.[inaudible] chose to be put into place different languages that all the other departments put information in

spanish, cantonese, chose chinese and suffered of it that been done? to jeff suppan completed it done yet. we're working with the city to do basically major meet the requirements of the 12 hold our hands and walk us through the process. i believe it will be done before the end of the world >> is there any expenditures that you expect that might be >> we don't know because they are trying to make it easier for us. i did anticipate there would be but without knowing what it is, probably at the point we know will ask for an additional amount of money from the board and the mayor. separate from the big budget process to ship would you know that before you put in your submission? if you do need these additional amounts what i'm suggesting is perhaps you might want to make some sort of estimate and put that in there so this isn't held up >> also get some kind of

number out of them but i don't know what it is. based on our conversations, i do think there's owing to be an expense. i hope sounds much as i had originally feared but i don't know that yet. >> you originally told us you thought you would have it in the apartment. you would have it and you would bring [inaudible] that was the last thing that you said after you >> but i don't know the estimate i had for it then was anyone to be near accurate >> which was a zero then. he said we'd have it in the [inaudible]. do you think us changed, >> i think that i had calculated a figure that i thought it would cost. at the time. but, again >> i'm wrong about zero but -- you sure sort of reassurance you have the money but not things you may not?

>> if i can make it work i will bid if not with that to get a supplemental appropriation. i don't think they'll delay it's good i'm hopeful, maybe even positive that the city realizes what we needed that for they would see it helping us to do it. >> they would. all right. i would encourage you to really make that a priority. >> were going to make it happen. >> thank you. >> so, i'm assuming from commissioner kings comment some funds on beasley could be fungible. if i recall i think of there was a past budget that may have had a vacant position salary dedicated that ultimately wasn't being filled but there were funds that were of there will -- not enough to hide a person that may possibly [inaudible]. you want to spend your funds. i think appropriate

ways in which you can do that. so there'll always be a case >> yes. they are fungible. it's not automatic. we can just do it and -- permission from of mayor's budget office and usually from it's like personnel from dhr. and there's a process in place. it hasn't worked for us 100% of the time but most of the time it does. >> two quick things i want to find out. are there any ought occupancy requirements for you as the commission is and the ethics, do you have to be in the city owned the building building? >> i don't think the city would give us the rent to move to a private property when the city space available. >> got it. then i was just thinking probably for own edification, just to see it's a bit of a strategic plan that would come to us in the form of an organizational chart. i think it would be great to see what it would look like, your proposed work shot chart as it relates to the increase, the

requested a little over $300,000 just to see where you're headed in terms of staffing and where you're putting your resources >> okay. i just want point out we i saw the city property we still pay rent. >> oh yes. i figured you guys want to know if you're comparing >> even asked for public comment. >> we did get this e-mail from disturbed bush in which he raises some questions. i just wonder did you look at that and give any consideration for example going through the grand jury report where we might have agreed with their recommendation, but said there were no funds, whether not we ought to include a request for an may get rejected, the lease which shows were making an attempt >> i've not seen that e-mail.

>> you haven't seen the e-mail, >> no. >> i one question about the [inaudible] week did you shop that at all, do we know there were so getting a good deal from that file based on what else is out there in the market? >> there's really only two vendors in the state that do this and the other one wouldn't be able to meet the demands of our capabilities right now. we're are in the first year of a three-year contract renewed contact. the language in the contract will allow renegotiation for this particular function that we want to do. but, as per my perspective right now they're really only the people that can meet our needs. we have to go through a very rigorous process when we let a new contract to have a sole source contract for us. because the only contact we have and seven different agencies have to sign off on it

before we can do it >> i just want us to be cognizant we sent up with that far that we are in anchor tenant. we got a good deal and if we feel where we become beholden to them it could never move, can't you worry about whether our ability to keep this as a reasonable cost [inaudible] potentially, is that i have some concerns about to beholden to any one vendor frankly. >> public comments? thank you. i'm larry bush >> i'm larry bush the unsettled budget issue. i was delighted to hear mr. st. croix thinks form 700 will be searchable because that will make a big difference in terms of being able to see where the conflicts might exist. the grand jury also i recommended creating electronic database on

contracts for the same reason. i would like to recommend that you ask for a budget whether you submit it now or now at least know what it would cost. currently, as i understand the process, if you receive the conduct notification by e-mail and then they are essentially put on the pdf so they're not searchable to go through in the same way you also be true on [inaudible] travel money. it's worth noting, it was an opinion from i believe it was the rimshot law firm that stated that no one may gift an official of more than $440. and right now there's an aggregate for the entire year. travel money is not excluded from that.

yet, we know that we are seeing people who are giving five dollars are more for travel. how much more and for how militants in one of the gifts they give, we don't know. so, it would allow for a better enforcement of those kinds of things. just a straightforward thing. so, gets contracts being searchable. it's making [inaudible] payments and travel money electronic and the f pvc which is really the [inaudible] say they have no problem with us doing that locally. and adding additional stuff. then also we recommended that there be a commissions secretary position created in addition to the executive director. there wasn't money for that. the recommendation was that you could do a part-time commission secretary to at least follow up. i'll give you an example of the kind of follow up that appears to be missing judging

from what happened with mr. grossman and that is, whenever someone files a complaint with the ethics, they are supposed to receive under the charter notification back that the command had been received. then it gets turned over to the pa or city attorney, they are to be notified if it's been returned and it is been returned is the commissioner going to take up and what are the reasons. our investigation showed those notifications are not taking place. i think they're important part of not only transparency but also public confidence in the work of the commission. >> thank you thank you. >> the next item on the agenda -- oh, sorry. is there a motion to approve the budget request?