nd possible action on public finance report after each election cycle involves this the staff makes a report to the financial program another this meeting the staff will present a report on the 2014 election who is going to make the presentation on blood of staff. >> this the deputy director and this summarizes the election data it took place in 2014 this is a subset of the data that you just heard about so in 2014 the size even numbered in the supervisorial addict were on the ballet and the incumbent was involved initially of the 17 candidates

that ran 8 expressed an interest but two applied for public financing on refugee realized the other 6 did not meet the public threshold the two candidates ran if district 10 and received a combined total of $175,000 from the time that the public financing program was implemented in 2002 several changes have been made to the program like the they recalled and the various deadlines and the amount 3 somebody can receive so because of those changes it is difficult to identify my patterns that could have resulted from public financing

and the report contains detailed information about the amounts of money raised by the candidates spent by the candidates including the third party's but because i think bus stops were involved spending was relating low as compared to captioning candidate races in prior years i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i thought the report was thorough. >> i'm curious it is so dramatic that the two candidates that applied for public funds did get some hefty amazes one hundred and 45 i 35 thousand and other large amount what were the factors in terms of the

conditions that would have kept the others from depleting and applying i think as a candidate first place a caption and that kind of money we are be available to me i'd dive on it. >> in order for a candidate to be eligible the candidate has to show that he or she a available candidate and raised a certain amount of money and the threshold if the 12r0ir8 program a candidate has to show a nonincumbent candidate this is a to show he or she as raised at least $10,000 in contributions from one hundred individuals that live in the city in amounts from 10 to $100 that's one of the criteria and that's i think the main criteria other criteria includes things like running foreign the office

and be eligible to turn in our forms and met all the requirements so on and so forth. >> thank you. >> any public comment on the report? seeing none thank you very much we'll move to item number 5 discussions and possible action regarding a promoted amendment to regulation which allows staff to implement an electronic filing system for candidates involved in the financing program >> commissioners jessie deputy director so this item is a concerning a small change to language with the big impact which is as commissioner vice president haney stated would

allow for the prelims of essentially the electronic submission by candidates seeking public fivens of the required record so as was mentioned earlier, you have to submit prove 0 of receiving a certain amount of finance and after qualification if you want matching fund again have proof you've served a certain amount of contribution from folks in san francisco so currently this is done can be done electronically but through e-mail or to go back to the late 90s a floppy disk this would allow is to use the new system created by the vendor north file so folks can enter into it directly and help the candidate

statement they have to file afterward we have mr. macy who can answer the technical issues it is a small fix that will be helpful for everyone. >> why an amendment why is there a present section that prexhudz excludes it. >> it - we're hoping to do - we need to be able to designate and tolling tell people they need to file if the rate doesn't changed they're not going to send it to us e-mail we thought it was wise to say we're going to have you do it in a manner and we can role it out slowly depending on who is applying and when but know right now people can submit

it on floppy disk. >> the hope at the end of the day they'll be required to do it electronically and if there will that make it easier for the public to assess the information. >> that's correct. >> in what way. >> you guys want to - >> all of the qualifying contribution forms and advisor physique of mifblg forms electronically will be distancing posted to our website right now their paper forms that start off for some of the information you'll have to come in and request it i'll say the greatest benefit really the efficiency in and how we process those forms and the efficiency for the campaign you essentially have to do the

recordkeeping twice for all our contributions ones for the recording process and ones to disclosures the information on the state forms this allows the candidates to do it in would step any commissioners have comments. >> public comment? do you want us to make a motion to implement have the staff implement the proposed amendment? that's correct i think it will just be approving the proposed language that's on - in the regulation >> okay. all right. anyone want to make a motion and i move. >> all in favor, say i. going to item number 6

discussions and possible action regarding potential additional amendments to the san francisco finance reform owners jessie you'll be responding to that. >> yes, sir. >> commissioners at the last meeting the commission approved a package of proposed amendments to the finance reform owns and a number of commissioners asked the staff to going and basically perpetrate a document that facilitates a discussion at this meeting for potential ideas that my otherwise augment some of the provisions of c infraordinance so what we did was we had comments from interested parties

including the friends i have ethic we liquidated some of the discussions the commission has had over the past few years and took some of the commissioners comments and basically widowled down comments. our discussion some of those are bigger ideas than others we tried to provide a balanced overview so i'm going to sort of list them off now the first - >> sorry to interrupt i know it would be best to just do them one item at that time and have discussion with the commission and public and move to the next

or do you want to do all 6. >> well, certainly at the commission discretion you should decide on what it presidents to focus on whether of those or one or two of interest to the commission or all 6 and so i think certainly having an overview so the commission can have a sense of what's out there it maybe the commission decision that they're all good ideas but to want to focus on two or three it is certainly up to you. >> my - and commissioner keane yes madam chair mr. mr. chair, i think it best if we took them separately and discussed them each on if decided by us we want

to go ahead on each of them because they're very discrete and in different ways we likely want to make a motion regarding it for example, like the first one is something on the ballot and discuss that and do or not do whatever and move to the second one taking them all 6 together would be hard to make decisions between them what we want or not want to do. >> okay. any of the other commissioners have thoughts. >> i agree with our suggestion i think we'll take them one at a time and i'll propose we have the commission discuss and make a vote who they want to say that's something they want to have done and prioritize because

maybe we can't do all 6 but after saying we want to do all 6 let's put priority. >> great, thank you okay. so the first proposed idea would be applying the city contribution limits and bands to candidate control committees not associated with the candidate election and the two examples are here ballot commissions and ballot committees under the states that are controlled by the candidate under state law he or she if they have significant power on the decisions of

committees we've had committees in san francisco and outside of the jurisdiction controlled by city officers and or candidates so this provision or idea would essentially apply limits that otherwise apply to election campaigns there are no limits on the committee so for example if a committee controls and ballot control committee they could raise and spend money from corporate trshth but if this person were running for office he or she would be limited this will apply the city limits and bans to my ballot measure or the city officer or candidate will

control i'm having to go into more details this is laid out i can certainly answer questions any questions of jessie on that i don't have any questions when we get to the discussion i'd like to contribute to that. >> all right. when you say get to the discussion what you want to you want to discuss that proposal >> this is a proposal that has a grateful of merit to it and we should go forward on it i'll note that one of the things about this commission that makes it unique as a body that has power to effect things in the

ethic situations in san francisco is our ability to put things on the ballot and i would suggest that we go forward with it in that respect with this one a because my prediction would be i could be wrong i don't want to be led gown the garden path if we went in the way of putting it forward to the board of supervisors to the mayor there is a lot of political down side to those in the political arena and they'll be lobbying against it there is a good temptation i'm not speaking against it only the realty of politics that they be very likely to say let's not do

this if we were to go ahead and go ahead and in terms of asking the board of supervisors to do it and having it go forward in a usual way for the mayor i think we'd be somewhat - particularly we're looking at something to have it on the ballot for the november election we'd have to do it within a fairly short amount of time and the people in the political process can easily run the clock out and this gets lost like so many other things that get lost that start out are beneficial and just whatever else the bureaucratic process or memory fades and it go happen to

bottom line i move we go ahead and do this in the form of a ballot measure that this commission puts forgot to be on the november ballot. >> i have a question of the city attorney do we have 80 before we put something on the ballot do we have to go to the board of supervisors to see whether they'll do it. >> to the in question of do we need to forward it to the board in the ethics commission can put it forward as a practical matter you may want to for various reasons some may have ins and outs about the way it could be augmented, etc., etc. one other point i want to highlight is that and this is the first

photograph on page 3 jessie points out we're impacting new contributes to the bans those limits or bans need a legislative record stating the corruption concerns exists in the city and that this measure will act appropriately to attack that concern this needs to take place certainly before anything is placed on the ballot just to hostile a fire amount of work i'm happy to work with the starch we'll put that together before we reach that and commissioner keane maybe correct what may happen at the board we need to take a look at the evidence and facts arrest i suppose the first step graft

something like that proposed language you want the public to adopt for the purpose of limiting the contribution to the committees correct. >> that's correct i mean we'll start off with proposed language that maybe tweaked or amended as we go through the legislation record process you know the one other time i'm aware of the noiths put it on the ballot was in respect to proposition o that established the city's financial program about putting on the before the voters themselves to the noiths did it after having a long series of meetings about what that public finance program should look like there's various proposals you know put forth and people notified to speak to the

commission about the best way to design it a lot of things happy before that mermaid the ballot and, of course was adopted by the public. >> any other comments commissioners any public comment there. >> thank you larry bush for the friends of ethics i think the gentleman did a good job i agree with a hearing establishing were there needs to be legislation is critical and should be in the read for the full commission friends of ethics will be happen to participate in the discussions and provide whatever information just to good enough a fuller context under the current mayor have we've seen put together a committee for the

operation of bundling money for people in the business and the mayor makes decisions where to allocate money and we saw that in 2012, the first check was for $25,000 for chuck conway came within weeks to the mire adapt a new tax to mr. conway and his previous enterprises the rest of the money was $400,000 all of it in 57 figure numbers almost all from busy about to benefit from the city's rewrite of tax laws that would underscore why the question is raised the same thing for the board of supervisors establish a ballot measure committee and they can accept contributes from people

that are having decisions made by the board of supervisors memo cites a few court cases doesn't mention those court cases involved committees so when we have acknowledge interested persons committee we should have a committee citizens for clean government for example this is not about candidate control and in the second case of the f bp case not on prevention grounds but rather when the legislation existed so just so you don't think i am preventing - prvbd to be a lawyer this comes from consultant and

other people had been happening happy to participate i recommend a process for interested pirates i do think it makes sense for this to go on the ballot to establish greater public confidence in how money is spent spent. >> any other public comment? >> good evening, commissioners a few comments in imposing a $5 million on the committees and packs that are controlled may raise constitutional issues the

u.s. 12ruk9 held it is appropriate to limit the contributions an ordinance limiting contributions to ballot measures ununconstitutional 0 interferes with the free speech the court was clear when it stated the following whatever the state interests or degrees in limiting the contributions to or expenditures for candidates hair is no significant state or public interest in curtailing the debate on ballot measures and placing the limitations planning impayers free speech of expression and integrity of the system will be accurately protects with the contributors that are named in the public

filings thank you. >> any other public comment? >> good evening. i'm robert i was with the sill grand jury the staff makes an important point about building the confident you may want to get briefed on the legal challenges and what the elements should be in the record by the way if you don't build the record beforehand you you know what's going to happy it will be hard so you want to build the best record you can this comes up here and another item we'll did you say momentarily it is important to get into the habit of building

the record in terms of getting the right people to speak at meetings and awe literally the information and building historical information as appropriate thank you. >> thank you any other public comment. >> consistent with our earlier comment any commissioners want to make a comment. >> i move we go forward at this point and uphold the necessary interested personsometers that the chair that the staff determines are necessary to build a record relating to this and that we at our next meeting hold that material together with our own building of a record

here at our next meeting with speakers who want to speak on above with interested groups like the friends of ethics civil grand juror and other people that show they believe this is something that is good for the city and county of san francisco and my intention to be after that is done if that appears as i think that well, this is something that is beneficial necessary and there is a sufficient record made to justify it i'll anticipate at this point and making a motion for the commission to put it on the november ballot so right now it is sort of preliminary aspect we're to go to take those steps to build the records with the interested party and having it

for a full discussion at the next meeting. >> any second to that lengthy motion? >> i'll second it. >> pardon me. >> i'll second it. >> any comments on the motion before. >> i only have a comment on if we are moving forward i'm in support of moving forward i'm a little bit nervous about letting the november election somehow frame the work we do if it turns out we run out of 7, 8, 9 we need to hear from all interested parties we don't make the november ballot i would not is that as a failure we're doing our due diligence making sure we're coming out of the gate

with the information to make the best decision possible to the degree we're completely vested to this timeline i'm in support of motion. >> yeah. my concern is based on the city attorney's office described i'm not that it is realistic to talk about doing it within the time to get it on the november ballot because it strikes we me need draft language of what the provision is going to be we're proposing before anybody either pro or con can really start making presentations why it is necessary to adapt that language to avoid corruption and to make the political process