e have learned our concerns and issues from the public and interested persons meeting and then move forward from there and then the third piece is currently give h.r. the reaching out to other ethics commissions or other municipalities who those search proposals are. >> can i add a couple off thoughts on options two and three so on option 2 my understanding and unfortunately we don't have the meeting of h.r. here but my understanding in terms of an expectation they'll offer the extension to everyone but the lions everyone in the pool that's not submitted a proposal and is interested can submit not solely would be firm to initially signals some

interest and in staying in opposition 2 in terms of the appeal letter f it maybe useful for h.r. to know whether the decision not to have a letter would automatic disqualify that but if you're at a place you need to consider them seriously it maybe helpful in opposition 3 for others ethics commissions and other similar agencies again, i wish there were people from d h.r. but reach out to the pre-qualified pool of 6 research firms that is going out to the school district of the normal process of contractor in the city i know there could be restrictions in our ability to

urge or tell firms there maybe issues about certainly firms a tap on the shoulder they should be engaged everyone can see the revenue assignment and make their own evaluation a birth way to proof that's a d h.r. discussion does that make sense does that help. >> i'm more there with 3 than two the fact as the procurement process and an rfp goes generally, the world is now on a particular date may the 27 this goes out and people are interested and some folks may would go online and say you know by tomorrow you have to go online and show interest so we know you're interested and for those who didn't meet

that it is pretty much showing organizations are not interested in that particular proposal the fact it someone has bothered to let us know they wanted to submit a proposal but didn't we need to treat them definitely than the folks that didn't apply they may have had an internal meeting and not interested but they had in such or enough imperial conversation, yes we're interested in doing it and we didn't do it i don't know what that is i don't know whatever that is to be an institutional weakness i'm sorry we forgot to do xyz. >> i understand the president

of the explanation it is like showing up to a job interview late not a good impression whichever if it's a condition they need to submit a letter to be in the mix it will be helpful for d h.r. to do that and other people in the pool so he know. >> that's my only thought. >> chair i would say i appreciate we want an explanation i don't know, you should make it disqualifying you ask ask them about it i'm fine tool opening it up to 5 other candidates if they want to submit and you guys can vet why it didn't happen in the first time. >> and i agree i probably was not here i believe we were only going to open up to one other

interested party kind of trying to date someone not interested and three or four other entities are not interested that's okay. so i was only moving forward under the belief we were moving in would someone that is showing a little bit of interest and president to find out why their late to the job interview if we widened it for all pre-qualified we shouldn't have it as a disqualifier did you but it would be nice to know why they didn't submit. >> i'll be uncomfortable if we stebd the date it should be extended for every firm to which a proposal went and whether we extend it for a week whatever it is i mean, we

clearly if a second firm that got the original proposal comes in it's a that's a fair question why didn't you file or respond by the 26 like we told you and unless they've got a good answer that maybe important and saying what they'll meet dell's from the future but if we do it for any of them that got the original proposal we should extend the time. >> is the next question how far we'll extend our process - our proposal? >> that's the third proposal whether we extend it by asking

h.r. or you or me to communicate with the various ethics and ask the commission to tells us what search firms they've used and tell the city to send a proposal you, you i thought that commissioner vice president andrews upgraded doing both currently i fully support extend the deadline for 4 weeks or whatever is reasonable and perhaps the chair or vice chair calls the other ethics commission and does a formal questioning and decide whether or not we need to open this process up and go fufrd. >> i sent an e-mail to the new chair from the f pc and gotten no response asking some of those questions but i -

>> pay a visit. >> well, you want to make that in the form of a motion. >> so i move that - we extend the deadline for submission of proposals for recruiting firms to the original identified city and county vetted firms and currently the chair and vice chair will reach out and have some informative information interviews information interviews with other like bodies bodies. >> second. >> public comment? >> can i just.

>> yeah. >> well, you don't need to take public comment again number 2 in terms of extending the deadline do you want to put a precise timeline or delegate it to the committee. >> one week. >> might want to leave it open you might get information. >> fine with the committee making that decision. >> okay. >> take public comment? >> and should have raised this earlier larry bush why explicit the commission ask a supplemental on the board the ethics commission has not been

presented by the mayor it can go through the board of supervisors it's not unusual we need another thirty or $40,000 we need a robust candidate given the fact the last executive director served for 10 considers that's an important consideration i don't know why this is not a better use then trying to integrate $20,000. >> charles again, i wanted to say i think you can keep is simple our one week or short extension certainly should be done generally and simply so you don't get users into a legal problem i've communicated with

bob, sir in europe kind enough to rely i asked about the ethics bodies in the united states and which may have hired firms for this purpose he went through the list on his overwhelm to his acknowledge no one has. >> what. >> that no one has worked with a recruitment firm for their major positions on their staff to his knowledge he'll be here in days we'll be able to talk with him, i suggest you do our outreach that's a good idea on the hope that mr. strathern doesn't know everything none of us do. >> david pill pal speaking an

ass an individual i agree with the one week detail i suggest you put-down a deadline if you make it a week from today or tomorrow put it open the june 5th special meeting to see the response and if necessary to take further action this is bottom of the hill more of an interim process to the extent you'll report back next friday and again, if further decisions are needed for the commission that's a good opportunity to do that. >> any other comment all right. i'll call the question. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> > opposed? hearing none it is carried 5 0 and the 7 days puts it to the 3rd of june.

>> i think we left it up other committee to decide in general, i feel the more we can streamline with the committee making those decisions. >> any reason we didn't set a date either the three or four and put agenda items on the 5th to see whether or not we want to revisit let's assume we don't get a second proposal and make our acquires report back to you we don't have anything other than an alliance maybe at that point we'll go ahead. >> i thought we authorized you and the having to talk to any recruiting firm if you like alliance we don't have a proposal we'll go that one reason one week is not enough

h.r. says there's no way you'll get another week i don't know but it is better to think about it we can ask questions but don't have to talk about it as a formal agenda item where we are in the process of getting the recruiter. >> i thought that was the reason. >> i want to be clear are you saying that you want commissioner vice president andrews and myself to just go forward with the process select the recruiter and just report book to you and is this is what we've done but not getting approval from anyone this is fine if you want that. >> that's fine with me. >> that's fine with me. >> subject to the budget issue. >> all right. >> that's what i thought. >> we have our marching orders

i don't know - i don't understand but i understand it whatever commissioner vice president andrews and i meet in the vetting process it is a meeting the commission and requiring notice to the public ; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> in terms of clarifying the action by the commission tonight are you resending the prior notation motion. >> no. >> is there an additional motion that the chair and vice chair are dleshtd with the responsibility of selecting a search firm. >> i'm not sure what the motion was item it's a slightly different motion for the sake of transparency there's a lot of consent to that concept.

>> maybe we should make another motion. >> that would be helpful. >> i move to deliberate to the chair and vice chair the decision on choosing the search firm. >> second. >> any discussion? any that is call the question >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> > opposed? motion is carinii guess you and i can vote on it 5 0. >> all right. let's move to item 5 which is discussion and possible action on commissioner president keane's vote and recommendations for the rewrite of prop j and the restoration of the commission oversight of the ballot measure for upcoming

elections and attachment commissioner president keane's report and draft for the lobbying ordinance i think the most recent draft of our proposal is circulated whether or not with our agenda? okay so commissioner president keane i'll ask you to report >> thank you, mr. chair in my report itself it pretty much sets out the history of what we've done since the last meeting you've appointed me as an ad hoc committee recommending to two matters whether or not prop j should be rewritten in different enacts with the ballet this year, and, secondly, whether or not we should put together a regulations of expenditure lobbyist i'll submit

it to the ballet this year as said in the report with my discussions with the chair the chair and i came to agree that the effort was two big to do all of this this year we couldn't do it to have it on the november ballot so in regards to prop j that is put off to another day hopefully, we'll under take this in the late summer for whatever rewriting write you think it appropriate and to submitted a ballet measure for 2016 church lobbying regulation is not a simple matter as purple heart put forth it creates a category of expenditure lobbyists which had existed

really before the commission had struggle everything down into on lobbyist that had a triggering effect one contact between the lobbyist the lobby civil grand jury and friends of ethic this commission back in 2013 had recognized as something that was lost there it was two narrow and one could be a lobbyist a very powerful lobbyist by expenditures in fair of things on behalf of someone that was in power without having contact with that person and doing it for the purpose of influencing that individual in legislation and other matter

so what this does this creates a category of an expenditure lobbyist where the single can get is not necessary as a triggering aspect of whether or not respond is in the category of an expenditure lobbyist if someone the actual expenditures it e that can be identified for the purpose of influencing someone in legislation or other civic action someone in power and someone is doing that that person has to register as a lobbyist and file reports in regard to the disclosure of who is a lobbyist and not a lobbyist this is one of the areas happily that the supreme court has left alone the most part in terms of

citizens united which drew from the ability of government to regulate expenditures and saying no. you can't make those expenditures this didn't do that this goes with the question only of the disclosure which the supreme court said that's all in you'll right if they're indeed acting as a lobbyist for influencing people in power in the interest of transparent and good government the citizens within the jurisdiction should know that person is doing i'm not saying you can't spend but the fact you're doing it should be known and that is all that this measure will do in terms of creating a category of expenditure lobbyists

so it is something that has been drafted i've had the good fortune of having people looking at this thing loopy and friends of ethic and the members of the civil grand jury helped me in the drafting of the particular lobbyist revision and super competed it on the exist legislation that related to lobbyist it's been priority good input in regard to thing that he sees as suggestions for the wording and his input has caused changes in regard to how the actual wording of measure should be i would request that the commission tonight authorize us

to continue with this diagonal with the staff over the course of the next month and further craft the language we want for an expenditure lobbyist and then at the next meeting have before us the actual what we all see we're not going to agree on everything but the preferred language we come to for an expenditure the commission then will have the opportunity to examine it for several weeks the commission had a mass of material thrown at it in the last couple of device so it's a lot to suggest but by the time the commission their thoughts will have jelled in regard to this and we can look at it and come up with a yay or

nay as to who we want to put this on the 2015 ballot so that's where we are with this. >> question. >> i have one question if we were precede as commissioner president keane suggests isn't there a requirement for us to hold some kind of a hearing to make a finding as to the need for this legislation? >> there's no specific legal requirement that the commission needs to have a hearing to justify the need for this proposal are set of amendments certainly will be in keeping with the commission past practices for any regulations

prior to proposing language that will address that issue but no specific legal requirement i certainly we'll not at least have a discussion or at least one more discussion at the end of the june there will be two times in which the commission considered the matter. >> commissioner hur. >> first of all, thanks to commissioner president keane so for going above and beyond as a commission to work to draft the legislation and i agree with the idea we need to do something about it the future lobbyists it is important we need to further regulation for commissioner president keane identified i have a couple of concerns i want to raise regarding the specific language that's been proposed i think it is two board and i know that

commissioner president keane will go back and work with the staff on it but i'm very concerned of the definition of lobbyists is two board and two difficult to enforce i really think we should humane it more narrowly and give more thought in how this is fits into the rest of the array i have questions what it means to register and how this process works as one is no longer screwdriver a lobbyist like if they spend 5 thousand dollars in a month they don't spend oath money for a year it apparels they are they still a lobbyist they have to register as a lobbyist before they spend another dime on conditional

efforts to influence local administrative action that's a high-level of my concerns my second main concern is the process concern typically and i'm glad the staff has been involved but typically the staff is responsible for doing the drafting their you know they're the ones that are doing the analysis we get a memo describe why the change is made and the pitfalls and where it came from how it compares to previous language i'll suggest we have even more involvement in it if we can on it i know we have lots of things on the list to do i'm not sure how that works in the timing point but especially, if we are going to go to the ballot we have to make sure that is right it can't be easily amend i want the staff

and public i'd like a lot of input we're getting this right further to that point i wonder where we shouldn't try to run this go through the board then you know it can be more easily amended and further vetted there from the board guts it are does something we don't like we can go to the voters the board may provide us with more ability to see what this looks like in a couple of years and amend to further as need unfortunately, the timing has is not dispositive i'll not been able to attend the june 5th meeting i'm in trial if it can't be rescheduled i understand the

commission will do the most appropriate thing. >> any other commissioners. >> let me ask commissioner president keane give me an illustration of an expenditure lobbyist just so i clear - >> what it is that we're trying to get another. >> you want supervisor x to favor a particular position for you you then go ahead and have a conference in the four seasons hotel in needs france you sponsor and sxifr x is someone

you sponsor and number of individuals that speak on various topics supervisor x is someone who is invited you have had no contact with supervisor x but supervisor x by consequence is spend two weeks in the south of france in about how far weather enjoying the amenity of the four seasons and comes back you've had no dealings with supervisor x but it you're doing it clearly to influence his legislation. >> i use on strom but you see within the extremes you might be able to pick out certain things that have happened in san francisco with