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 more

transparent on the other hand those for those say who want to oppose it to be specific in their language so i guess i envision it is more of a at least two or three step process the first being asking the staff to draft the language that in her opinion what is being talked about in this memo under item 1 and present that to us and get some all the time on this language that is commission he believes should be adopted and set up a campaign to support it and let those who oppose it set up their campaign and make the record we have to make in other words, to meet anyling legal challenge down the road

>> mr. chair you and commissioner andrews have convinced me of the merit of what you said in that my initial rush for this towards the november ballot mainly comes from a certain weariness of the idea we put something off and it never happens or what we're doing it in due time and due time never occurs but in terms of our discussion we are all seemed to be agreed that this certainly merits consideration and record that would then allow it to be on a ballot if we find it has that worth and i agree that it is better to

do it correctly rather than to rush with my confidence in terms of hearing my fellow commissioners we're indeed going to go ahead and pursue this i'm going to pickup on what commissioner andrews said i don't feel we need to be vested to the november ballot but to putting it on the ballot. >> if i can call our motion or you want to restate a new motion. >> i think it is the same motion but rather than any define active language about the nova ballot only the commission put this on the ballot for the voters. >> second again second it. >> second.

>> all in favor. >> i. >> i. >> by way of clarification so for the next step to bring back language for the commission to look at it and we'll go there from there to build the record. >> on the next at the march meeting there will be proposed language that you believe we should recommend it do go 0 did ballot and take the steps necessary to get it going all right. item number 2 is fundraising and the reporting. >> yeah. so commissioners this proposal concerns the disclosure

of funding u fundraising or bundling activities by individuals primarily not lobbyist and fund-raising it under our current laws city lobbyists have to disclose this activity this broadens the reporting obligations to noting non-lobbyists have to disclose the first bundling which is generally, the sort of collection and transition of actually campaign contributions to a candidate eaten the second being fundraising this is atlanta a little bit horror broadly defined to hosting a fund-raising and soliciting the checks and psa them to the

candidate the idea is basically well, we have contribution limits in our city and county of san francisco a lot of influence perhaps undo you influence what about experienced by virtue of collecting fund for candidates so this would require the recording at a certain threshold of the bundling activity and there will be a couple of decision that the commission will have to make if it decided to go forward what's the threshold in terms of amount and who does the reporting whether the reporting is done by the burnter or the campaign or the candidate would be reporting who

is bundleer so this is some of the issues that the commission has to decide. >> any decision commissioners concerning this particular proposal? >> well, i hate to monopolize the meeting i would this one also is something that i would recommend we go forward on obviously it nodes a fair amount of crystal listing and defining as to what we want to do i think in terms of what the gentleman proposed he said i think there were 3 things that first had to

be determined as a to what it say we want to do for fundraising or bundling and what i - again, i'd like to keep this one going forward not with the kind of - the first one i'll give the greatest priority you've listed them well but go forward in terms of bundling because bundling i think it has tremendous problems relating to the appearance of corruption in san francisco and other place as well and i would ask that the staff recommend to us some language that we could use in

enacting some regulations that would address the bundling problem with some teeth in it and taking into consideration the concerns of mr. lamar put forgot i think at this point we're not in a position to be more definitive if i would i hope that's not floor vague when i suggested to the commission and hope the commission will see fit to go forward with that as well. >> any other comments? i'm curious now under the present system only lobbyists who bundle checks in other words collect checks and deliver them to the candidate as a group the only ones banned

from doing this >> they're not abandon they have 0 report and it actually is the broader definition it's the raising of money for candidates has to be recorded and just those last few months we're starting to see based on the regulars in the summer on reporting of those contributions so this will expand it to other persons not expand it but enclosure it for other purposes. >> what's the theory behind encompass this on lobbyists why were they picked out for example lynn like jane doe does this for parties. >> this was the owners that was

impacted in 2010 you'll impose those on lobbyist n there are in in a position to be asking officials to be making officials to make governmental decisions so the risk of the quid pro quo is we want you to please do xyz and by the way i'm going to have a fundraiser two days later. >> that's like saying i want to expand it requires the bundleer has to be someone that is someway seeing favors from the city in terms of there are other individuals that support candidates that hold fundraising functions who never lobby the city and are not noting doing

business with the city but like the candidate so the question why should they be required to if they don't have any connection with any kind of business and my quid pro quo supporting the candidate. >> that's a good question i'd say that this is first of all, a disclosure going as opposed to a prohibition so it is providing information to the public we want a they recalled i think to the extent that somebody raise $500 for a candidate is not important to the public but i get one of the things potential for future action that the

bubbleer may not be interested but they don't have anything for the candidate but in the future they do you raised an interesting point i'm unaware of any jurisdiction that requires reporting in general liquor a lobbyist it is what we do here and at the federal level. >> because in any other life i recommended clients that were small in the political process they'll have a farther candidate that went to college and hold functions by the totally unaware there was some reporting requirement and then something says hey, you violated that reporting requirement that's the

problem that if you're make it two broad you're going to capture people that who are not that familiar with the whole process lobbyists are people doing business with the city are. >> absolutely correct we're not in the bus of playing got you one option for the commission to impose the issue on the candidate so if the bundleer is raising $10,000 it is required to indicate it in some way on the unanimous reports. >> all right. >> any public comment? >> i'm larry bush from friends

of ethic we were one felt people that brought this forward for a number of reasons we say contributions that are arranged by city contractors who are not allowed themselves to give money but can put the check or raise money from other people so we asked the question of the ethics commission and she said that's a will that in the law there is no prohibition on people raising money for city contractors and who may not themselves girlfriend money we noticed in other jurisdictions there are rules that is a a city commissioner may not raise money for the people that appoint them that's a play to play politics so your point will the universe that should be captured or people that have an interest

whether an appointment a lease or contract is on point i don't know in terms of 6 what the gentleman said about future interests and whether you would say if there's going to be something in the next 12 months include that in the universe in a general sense i think we do need to close the loophole in part to respond to public criticism. >> if you made the candidate identify any burnl who is collecting money so for them without the possibility of parole that then satisfy the requirement that one could then start saying does that burnl is

there a connection and that's a good step i know in the last mayor collection people were asked to name the candidates so they respond we don't have to that goes to the point. >> any other comments? >> just briefly the second proposal i'm sure you're aware of requires the individuals that engages in a certain amount of clock for the candidates prohibiting such activities impose the additional burdens on those experiencing their first amendment rights if you decide to impose the reporting requirements the requirements on

the recipient candidates do that on the recipients and not the donors. >> do i hear any more comments and yes mr. chair, i ask we request the staff to go forward and come back with you to us with language relate to the regulations of bundling that will keep that will be sensitive to the concerns of just not picking up some innocent members of the public who has finds a candidate having an appeal and raises as a fundraiser for them and that to that end to link the bundling regulations in with the

requirements upon the candidates and also perhaps link it in with what we're going to be taking in item 4 the public benefits that the person is doing the bundling is someone that might be interested in a pro so we don't burn the good government person that decides to bag a mr. smith they want to send to wosh. >> second to that motion. >> all in favor, say i. >> opposed the motion is carried let's turn to 3 enhanced private right of action. >> commissioners by way of

clarification at the end of our discussion we can tube sort of the when and - >> okay. thank you the next item has to do with enhancing the counter private right of action found in c section that allows a voter to sue a candidate or city person to sue the c from as long as the city attorney decides not to sue so this was made and the san francisco grand jury over the past year the general rational is it will better insensitive the relations and folks have

pointed to the san francisco and california so the folks can be recovery up to electro50 percent a row there's no current section that explicit contemplate that the plaintiff will get penalties it provide an incentive to allow for attorneys foes so this is the general proposal and staff will note we talked with the folks in los angeles search warrant as well the state level those provisions are not frequently used in either of the jurisdiction they were different jurisdictions so that's the idea. >> any commissioner have any

comments? >> i have a question. >> at this time there is- no one can sue under those circumstances it's prohibited is there language that says it's prohibited. >> in, in fact somebody can sues is he have to essentially run it by the ethics commission and the city attorney first to give us first shot of enforcing those potential violations but assuming the city attorney says and the ethics commission says no. we're going got to do anything the plaintiff can force compliance it is hypothetical but there's a committee or a group of people that are raising and spending money on an election for they're not recording 34ig for whatever reason the city attorney's

office we're not interested in enforcing it they can be sued so they have to sue and they'll get their foes. >> this is the six so why impact an amendment to c from to enhance they're right. >> i think the rational is that right now you would get attorney's fees but it's safer in violation of the law they'll get half the penalties so say again somebody failed to report and fined or they were subject to a penalty of $50,000 that plaintiff would walk away with $24,000 in arithmetic to the attorney's fees if they're

successful. >> any public comments. >> i'll make two points you're correct the right to sue does currently exist that was appointment in the budget analyst report with the commission having reports this merely mentioned there's a right to sue in san francisco and didn't mention the comparison which was the budget analyst comparison where there's a recovery of penalty two things it puts a timeline for the ta and da to come back with a decision i'm sure you're aware of we'll have complaints saying we're going to act or no, this

they'll be required to come back and say within under the current rules i believe within 14 days the commission comes back and says we're going to or not going to do this 14 days is a fast turn around you're hearing a case tonight that's 4 years ago when they drag on the pueblos confidence so the timeline is one thing and the second thing you do want to have a threshold that is reasonable and in california at the state the secretary of state acting secretary of state tony miller he made a living filing complaint after he left that job and finally the state said wait a minute this is clustering this

up and not important so at the changed the standard but i think there recent some value in having sort of something that hangs over enforcement because frankly san francisco's representation for enforcement is not great not if you talk to the head of the fcc thank you. >> when i discussed this at the civil grand jury it that came up in prop j you're going to talk about and that had a fairly strongest private right of action that went away you're allowed any person to sue

in local courts to enforce you can prop j and to recover 90 percent of the money and get attorney's fees as well so this was a much stronger right of action than now exists in san francisco ordinance thank you. >> anita gentlemen briefly amending c from for percentages on the penalties will appear to give an expression of something other than wanting to have a enforcement it should be a preliminary law of the district attorney and not bournt hunter. >> thank you

anyone want to make a motion connection with the private right of action? hearing no comments i think we'll pass that one at least for new now >> the fourth one is contribution abandons foreperson receiving a quote public benefit quote/unquote from the city. >> thank you, commissioners this proposal was as mentioned before put forth originally by the civil grand jury and it is

reported last year noting that there had been prop j passed by the voter in 2000 that essential speaking rebroadly took what we had as the contractor ban theres a ban currently on folks that are negotiating contracts those folks are not able to contribute to city officials for a specified period of time that rational was applied with respect to a whole sort of list of benefits that folks might receive from the city such variances and tax abatements and special permits the idea being that if something is is soaking an official action they shouldn't be able to contribute to someone that was sort of in

charge of making the action this was part of prop j in 2003 and then proposition e and refined some of the prohibitions in proposition j the idea my understanding the folks from the civil grand jury the consideration not necessarily to re reimpact prop j but contributions when someone is applying forgive a permit or variance, etc. prohibit hopefully from making the contributions for that so it's a play to pay rule and the only thing we'll note