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 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