they can't receive contributions of more than $250 that's a general summon i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> any comments. >> commissioner vice president haney. >> yes. mr. chair this is one that i would respectfully suggest we go forward with the whole i think something is lost with praeks they ask whether it is valuable and so target in on the main vice we're talking about the play to play in regards to someone that is getting a public benefit for being able to give to the person who was making that decision sort of goes to the heart of

something that may well be corrupt or certainly appears to be corrupt and the subject of a grateful of controversy in the city 0 over the last few years i'll ask we go forward on this one as well and have the staff come back to us with some suggested language for a good a regulation that has teeth not allowing the kind of pay to play that is suggested by someone getting a public benefit in being able to contribute to the person who is going to make the decision they're going to get the benefit. >> other comments from any of

the commissioners. >> commissioner hayon. >> under prop b the contractor ban no public benefit. >> that's correct under city law. >> why did it supercede prop j. >> that's the expressed pregs progression of the property e we're going to take away everything this of the prop j and replace that with this narrow focused limits i wasn't there there were probably folks here that can explain it better it was true that the time prop j and the language that was infected that language was

destined by the oaks project that lunge made it's way into maybe a half-dozen city laws there was a challenge down in southern california for some of the language part of it was declared unconstitutional i don't know for a fact but i imagine proposition e superseding statute was enacted in part to that court case and some of the constitutional concerns that came up in southern california we look at himself. >> this a one an additional effort to broaden out prop a and to broaden it. >> to go right so right now the contracts radio covered and again, this will canned it to

the issues of permits that are not covered right now yeah. >> commissioner andrews. >> as i said the contract it isn't that you can never donate you would be using that language in 6 months of a particular election cycle so there's lack that surround it is that the language you seek to mimic this there's an opportunity to do not. >> it's from the beginning of negotiation after perusal of the contract with the state law prohibition with the limit of $250 there's a time limit there i think one of the problems with

prop j was actually, the prohibition laced 6 years in some cases we want to make sure that the limit lasted for the appropriate amount of time because this is a limit end to prohibition we'll have to build the appropriate record that takes a little bit of homework for staff it's sort of complicated housing and tax issues just to find out there is, in fact, a justification for this limit. >> i'm familiar with the contractor abandon i think there is possibly some conversation for the nonprofit the executive director and he ceo couldn't i think it coasted board members

it makes it trvrm it's hard to keep track of our board members activities and so has an opportunity to for one to fall down unknowingly. >> undoebl that's correct with the abandoned the contractor ban and i believe in prop j it applied to corporate officers but to the board members and frankly that's a lot of recordkeeping to figure out occupying we have to found out who is actually applying for what predicament and decisions and kwh when it is triggered and who are the board members and individuals covered corporates cannot make direct contributions

to candidates to the prohibition is on they're owners and board members. >> hear a motion in connection with item 4. >> yes. mr. chair, i ask we direct the staff to come back i've i'm sorry to come back to us with language that will address the question of someone who is receiving a public benefit if it city not being allowed to engage in contributing or any type of pay to play activities they're allowed to do now the public

benefit aspect of the prohibition be put in to broken down the present prohibitions against contractor and other specific people that are in there now. >> second. >> second it i think we can take the first step. >> public comment on this particular one? yeah. i'd like to make a few historical points the whole section of our report is the history of prop j and it's repel prop e was a broader rewrite of the laws of the city a number of those are adopted by the voters

and moved in certain ways where you will venting to amend them in the future glow the board of supervisors like the campaign so there's a whole there's a lot of moving parts the trshth of limitations have been separate ballot proposals that were encontacted in the 80s and 90s prop j was not an outside group from sole they've got their own lunge that didn't mesh with other language and had other things it was raising what intrigued us with the public benefit yold that in the technicalities in our package there's a finding of the

declarations that are very strong with about you know the appearances of corruption and things like that and grant the public benefits that went away i think what strengthened ordinances that are aimed at controlling corruption regardless of how the other text was worked with this concept of thinking about publicly benefits is important for thinking about how the flow of money can effect city government in negative ways so i will forward you that section of the report for you to look at but the think the history is a little bit more complicated then being discussed at this point >> other public comment? >> larry bush from friends of ethics when this was passed as

prop e nothing in the material that went to the commission that explained those prop j was being repelled and nothing told to the board of supervisors when they did the rewrite not in the voters handing handbook we can people served on the commission that h said i have no idea and members of the board of supervisors that like the president of the board of supervisors that said i had no idea so when mr. raven put together the section for the grand jury he repeated the quotes under the nicole and the board of supervisors and there's no mention in any of this about repel the public benefits

prohibition there was an earlier effort by members of the commission to repeal the section having go to do with the board of supervisors but couldn't find a section you'll not find a sponsor for that 0 that's not the way it is at city hall of this is not election year people understand the dynamics but certainly when your talking about things like tomcast or ecology or other types people with special permits there are questions raised all the time about the fact that in terms of being able to do research and work we did it at city report i just hired somebody to go through the top 15 you can go through the star and match it up

on the converting computer system additional match it up vi nancy pelosi nonprofits had made contributions we're talking about people getting contracts over $10 million so there's a reason why people have skepticism i suggest you guys look at the facts thank you. >> mr. chair may i ask mr. bush a question mr. bush you're more knowledge be able the history we listened to this and seems like there are negligence about the prohibition of someone getting a benefit

that all of a sudden that disappeared and everyone in positions of responsibility said gee we didn't know that is what happened then is that what happened then. >> i don't think that the people on the commission or the board were role aware of that provision because prop e in 2003 was broad had a great degree of material and if you look at the record it says we're going to come back to the some of the things later and, of course explicit and moved into the administrative code amended i ethics commission and, of course no one that have happened it looked at they were all processed original rather than result oriented and the ethics commission that put it forward i don't want to say ill

things they thought they were doing the right thing in cleaning things up in terms of supervisor david chiu's question about the length of time after someone had a contract while this prohibition is in neck that commission voted to make it 12 months and not sent to the board of supervisors a list of things that had been done by the commission but we are dropped in terms of getting to the board so 12 months is on record thank you. >> the fourth proposal will reenact the prop j as the

taxpayer act a confusing ordinance that is on caption tricks for people that receive public benefits such as a tax boimentsz, etc. prop j required the city officials to monitor to make sure the donors hadn't received as staff indicated prop j was repealed and proposition e waltz put into law the right side digest satdz it desolates prop j and that proposition e about accomplish goals by eliminating gifts and contributions but those provisions will be gnarling tailored to accomplish and in addition the ballot argument in favor state many of

the ethics laws were out dated or confusing and not inadequately addressing the regulations so the ethics commission spent the last 11 months discussing this with the public and city officials and legal experts cross california proposition e is a result i urge you not reimpact any of the confusions of prop j. >> any other public comment all in favor of the motion. >> i. >> i. >> opposed the motion is passed turning to 5 which is environment as a penalty.

>> commissioner. this proposal the idea is to add a penalty for violations of the campaign refinance ordinance for those who are city contractors and so the proposal is to debarment it prohibits persons who might do business with the city and county of san francisco from doing so or bidding on the contract for a certain determined period of time if they were to violate c from or proportions of c from i understand it on a similar provision that was impacted by the voters in los angeles and so

this is the general idea the one thing we'll note we note noted in the memo the debarment bent is a serious penalty that may or may not be warranted but other concerns with the contractors process those are taking a look at in los angeles when the ethics commission considers the severity of the violation and the effect and this is important i think the if effect of debarment on fiancees and legal obligations city attorney's office may not able to talk about that there's a process under chapter two 8 of the administrative code and any

violation can qualify as a violation and again in enacting in the commission pursues this idea one i feel of things we recommend the meetings and talk with city contractors and agrees to understand sort of how the process may work and the so-called mitigation factors motive come into play given i think the example you would give one-on-one won a $500 contribution and that violating a $20 million contract that is halfway to completion you want to make sure there's it wrote a disproportionately effected in terms of violation

commissioners any discussion on this? is there presently a debarment procedure >> as jeffrey mention there's a de bary in the administrative code under chapter 28. >> how does that function who makes the decision. >> decrease certain charging officials like the controller and the city administrator and they will bring to left to right essentially when the contractor did for the city law because you violated x not only are we're going do bar you but permit you from a period of time 1 2, 3 years which you can't bid for

city work this is not explicitly linked to the ethics commission so if the ethics commission pursues something against the contractor like a contribution ban issue unusually usually what the ethics commission is looking for a penalty is purely a monetary product so the ethics commission could try to incorporate it as a term of agreed b upon settlement and certainly, if there was currently some recourse to use the department procedure that is not explicitly linked with a process so hypothetically they could see the contractor availed a contribution issue for example, and after that concluded the charging officials by chapter two 8 can start a

second procedure the result is a the department it is practical and it is possible under the existing law. >> did he hear a motion in connection with number 5 if not public comment? >> thank you. i'm larry bush for friends of ethics i've spent them time with the urban development i saw a number of contractors with hud who were debarred in fact they published a list of people that were debarred from participation or a full debarment it is 5 years limited the denial is one year

it could be a real estate agency that misrepresented information or an contractor or could be a housing authority official i think the department is a serious to tell not use it frivolously but i think the commission should have the authority to use debarment if warranted otherwise you'll run go into cases that did money 4r5ur7bd and face penalty by the fcc and city but then went on to still have city contracts why would you still give city contracts that are worth more than the penalty into effect you've fined them because they

were rob the public so it is warned warranted in a number of cases. >> why is the process that the city attorney mentioned why isn't that the way to handle it rather than through the ethics commission. >> well the city attorney has done it to a property developer here in san francisco and told the contractor they were going to debar you and first, it forced them into a settlement of $20 million but that doesn't - that's a process that takes place outside of the public and didn't see the public has an opportunity to make a complaint and have it referred and plus, it's a two-step you have to have a hearing here and something

that goes on behind closed donors that's my answer. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> pacific islander berry this proposal adds debombardments from c from for impermissible hides i bids this will debar a contractor from a city contractor for a specific period of time this is a hash penalty when applied to regulatory schemes such hash penalties should are for penalties and decreeing from for other penalties and violations.

>> we shall move to number 6 oh i'm sorry. >> good evening, commissioners i would speak against addressing the penalty of c from commissioner andrews talked about in my view is the have you you have a volunteer of a board of directors that gets money from the city is the completely unaware their nonprofit gets money and decides to support a captioning candidate and makes a hundred dollars contribution the result is a nonprofit that otherwise is doing negotiating for the city debarred and that's a bit harsh it seems like this

will allow the city upon the recommendation to go after the worse violators if you had a city contractor laundering money to a campaign i would think the city process and you think the city officials will seek the department in that situation but to have it for the minor violation is not good. >> thank you item 6 is slate marital finding. >> thank you, commissioners this proposal this idea concerns slate motivators those mailers you get every election season which support or opposite 4 or more candidates and are

affiliated with participant where the candidates or measures are paying to appear on those mailers and sometimes not theirs subject to their own disclaimer rules impose by the state and technically state organizations and as such file their campaign statements discoloring money in and out with the secretary of state and file copies of their reports with the department of elections so this is just sort of a technical change that requires the slate of our mailers instead of filing them with the other agency to file them with the ethics commission so this is a one-stop shopping

we can see the candidate activity and the slate marital activity. >> you want to make a motion. >> i make a motion we approve that to make it possible. >> second. >> public comment? >> larry bush from friends of ethics just a point of information while it doesn't go to the election department the clerk is responsible for accepting documents from you'll see california and not only from san francisco submissions so therefore they don't have a system that allows you to go down and