san francisco, it addressed an analogous law. to the ethics and commission, and the board, to enforce that law and the ethicics, commission concludes, on that and the mckuchun decision, is not to enforce that provision, and they haven't in years, since mckucha n this would remove that provision -- if the board decided not to remove, they will continue to not enforce it, unless there is a change at the supreme court level. >> thank you. so i actually -- if we were making the amendments to this legislation they're approved approved. we have to go back to ethics because of the full board, or there is discussion at

the ethics commission, because of mr. bush, that is considered and sent back to the ethics commission with amendments? >> um this -- any amendments have to go back to the ethics commission. because this chapters of the campaign on conduct code was initially adopted by voters the board said, you can make amendments, but you have to follow the process, of the ethics ordinance that is board is going to adopt. if you take what the ethics board gave you, even taking out a few lines, you should then continue it ethics commission can hear it again recommend it again to and you can recommend it onto the full board. >> okay supervisor tang >> question about timing there

is election coming up in 2015 i respect that folks like to see this in place, for the upcoming election i don't know if it's you or someone from the ethic, commission that will speak to how long this will take effect or have the availability to change the forms all of that to apply to this november's election. >> mr. minority can speak to what the commission needs to make sure they get this into place, the ordinance will take effect 30 days after the mayor signs it which means, the commission was hoping that it would get through the board process, by late june. you can speak to that better, in order to have it in effect 90 days before election day. >> >> thank you jeff, jeff minority, deputy director, we're hoping to have it by late june

that mean, reporting after the midyear reporting deadline starting july 1st would be under this regime. in terms of ramping up for it we're prepare the to do that we would be creating a couple of forms, and a couple of guidance fact sheets for folks, and publicizing them. >> okay. supervisor tang >> thank you. given that information, i think that perhaps what we can do is something similar to wa we did with the appointments earlier, move this to a full board so we can have a full discussion with the full board, this is not just about this committee, it's broader than that, i would be willing to move to a full board, with or without recommendation for a robust members there. that would be my recommendation

overall, i do support the changes, proposed here as i mentioned before i have to have -- i pay so much money on my compliance team alone, to understand this so i don't break the rules i can't imagine someone who can't do this how they would achieve this without calling the ethics, commission ten times a day, overall these are changes that will make things easier for people. >> thank you for sharing that. i actual actually don't think the full board is the place to make amendments amendments would take longer to do. i support the general, underlying legislation the gray part of it, i do. i have three items i would like to make amendments on that are very small changes. so to me, i would rather see if we can i

don't know, possibly keep a file on committee, and move forward, follow up with changes if they're able to be supported. so i do think it's important to put something in place for this election. i don't think these issues that are highlighted here, that i'm making amendments on are ones i think should hold up legislation going forward, but i would like to see them incorporated to changes to finance law here in san francisco. i would still be trying to make these amendment, i'm not sure we have the votes at all even here to move amendmentses forward, so let me discuss what those would be. my concerns are what mr. bush has highlighted, i did talk about the first ones, highlighted page

four lines 22-23. that is the communication, the exemption for nonprofits, that might be putting on an event, they're not promoting, so much candidacy, but they are putting out a nice photo of the candidate, or mention the candidate's name, ensuring when the candidate is up for election i think that type of activity does help promote the candidate or some level, i don't think that gets under the scrutiny of the irs but it does play a role especially in voters minds there could be some kind of backing of the candidate, i don't think it makes any harm to keep this legislation to keep things the way they are right now, without the exception.

because we're just making sure there is any semiblens of any support for candidates for advertising of events that go forward, with the candidate's image or name. for me i would like to delete these lines from the ordinance so it will be lines 22-23, section ten, i will read those. exempt for taxation per sunt to title. 501 c three. code for it's own fund raising event. that would be my motion to exempt that language. i have other language i also want to add to my motion as well. on page 31, lines 19-24 this is around disclosure of surrender

information. right now, i want to have that language restorted, it's been deleted, it's 19-24, section d, in here, it's deleted, i'm hoping to add to my motion, this language be restored. this says detailed description of each paid, maid by the person in election hearing communications during the calendar year, provided the person has not reported payments on the disclosure statement, filed under this section it would be whenever there has been no mention whatsoever of this description of the payment to vendors, it's covering what has not been covered, if they haven't provided disclosure already, we're making sure they do provide that i want that

language restored. this is also would conform with los angeles where they keep this disclosure during this time in the elections. i think the other piece i would like to -- i think it's a minor thing as well, it's not a major piece i hope to have support on the other is page 36. this is regarding robo calls, currently, robo calls made to more than 500 people have to include paid for by statement, and the person paying them, must maintain a transcript, and the number of calls that are made, robo calls are regulated by the state we want to make sure we're keeping the process here in san francisco to mv forward. i would like to keep the language in the way it is. 36, line 22. also on

page 37 as well. disclosure requirements, recorded any recorded telephone mesopotamiaages mesopotamiaages, to 500 or more households include the following statements -- it goes onto describe the typical language, i would like to keep that language in there, and maybe we can get mr. minority from the ethics commission to explain a little more why that language has been deleted and why it makes sense even if there is state law that covers this hearing, why we wouldn't koob rate that with local law.corroborate

that with local law. >> thank you -- about money in politics, so basically, any call is likely going to be over $1,000, which is the trigger, if you are not a committee. right? if you are a committee, you have to comply with this any way. so it's basically redundant, this is introduced to the board before, this is redone tant of state law, in a real sense, so we took it out. that is one of the five sections, somebody would have to look at they're going to look at state law and say, oh, yeah that's what we have to do >> this is before the board before you said? then the board >> 2011 >> what did the board do with this? >> i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure >> there was an earlier version. similar kind of ordinance of this that was trying to simplify the third party reporting, i

believe the recommendation of ethics, was to do exactly this delete this provision, because it duplicated state law, the clean up is to try to get rid of state law in a number of places in the code. the board didn't act on that ordinance for a few reasons, among others i recall it eliminated the commutative contribution before mccluchin -- i don't recall this question coming in this ordinance. but mr. bush may >> it's redoneundant i can withdraw that. >> i would agree with you,

they're minor in the overall grand scheme of things, we put it in there for a reason, but people can disagree in terms of -- our experience with the surrender stuff, just as an fyi when people call us and ask for information, they're asking for who is spending the money and how much they're spending that's what they're asking for, what we try to do is just make the requirements for the ie reporting, the 496 and the member communication the same given that no one is calling about the vendor stuff. but people may disagree >> if they're not calling, that doesn't necessarily mean we have a law >> you are right. >> thank you. so i would like to

motion that those two sections, page four, line 22-24, and page 31 -- for nonprofit exemption for nonprofit communications, first i will do this i will duplicate the file >> for the chair, i would like to try to address some of the amendment, you have suggested, we can talk about that first, maybe? >> yes but i think -- i'm okay sending a version of the file forward i support with the legislation for the changes i would like to make i can duplicate the final without a second to that, is that correct? so duplicate the file then on one file we can talk about the amendments >> that is fine i wanted to

address it so you didn't have to go there. in any case you have withdrawn the amendment regarding robo calls, on the vendor issues, even though it doesn't come up with the ethics commission, i'm wondering if there is a way to compromise on this, to reference, other requirements, we have where people disclosure vendor information, rather than striking it out, people know or can get information on it or reference where someone else can obtain this information, or where it's submitted. again as a compromise for not completely move it from this section. >> i think this is where it would be. if it's going to be disclosed it would be on this form pursuant to the chair's

motion. unlike independent expenditure, where you are like a pac, committee, you could get that on other different reports, this would basically where it would be disclosed. >> on this one, i'm okay with keeping the language in then. but in terms of the nonprofit information, you know, one of my concerns is just that let's say a nonprofit is hosting an event that falls within that 90 day period, for the whole 90 day period they can never list without filing or disclosing certain things, about listing a supervisor, who may happen to be a race i do worry about those kind of situations. what gives me i guess confidence in supporting the exemption for nonprofits, is people can report to the ethics, commission. during the election season, people will be looking out for

things and support it i think that is that mechanism for it rather than burdening, a nonprofit event that wanted to list all of the supervisors on the committee, for various requirements we have for a regular campaign, i support the vendor amendment, but not the nonprofit 1. >> thank you. it's not just listing committee, but it's where the candidate can play a large role in an event, that the nonprofit puts on. i mean yeah. there are a million nonprofits that have events that -- not a million, but a lot. that put our names on a host committee, but it's when that person is a speaker, i thought that's where this legislation is creating an exception for not just the name

on a flyer. but the promotion, or mention of that person in a special way. >> it could be two things -- yes, it would have to be a relatively prominent reference. so if you were under this proposed legislation. so if it's tiny it wouldn't trigger the reporting any way. if somebody say, the name, speaker, event, that would likely trigger the reporting. >> right >> does that answer -- >> so nonprofits are required to report a host committee name if we were to not have this exemption, that i would would be required to report how a candidate is presented in a prominent way in their event, like being a speaker or getting an award at the event that's

the difference. i don't think -- or is it any mention of the candidate would have to be reported >> you are right. to the extent it was a small reference to the candidate. it wouldn't trigger the reporting any way. the way we have it structured is you would look at the general set up of the mailer or whatever it was, if somebody was like taking up a tiny bit of the real estate, you would only allocate a small amount of the amount spent to that person. really what we're looking for more is the person takes up sort of a substantial portion of a mailer that goes out really, you are featuring that person. >> i believe if if there's a nonprofit every year or an event that happens, nonprofits

are going to be -- the person running for office and will be weary about given someone an award, or a prominent position in aan event, or advertising that event, knowing they would appear to be promoting that candidate's candidacy. >> i think it does depend. i hear what you are saying if they do it the same time every year, and the person is up for election every four years you run into that problem. the if the person ran is elected, the next year in october, he or she is speaking at a fundraiser prominently peachered as the keynote speaker does it again, no problem. but then that 4th year, there is nothing out of the ordinary it's what they do every year at that time but it would trigger the lex nary

communication rule >> they would report >> they report, and put the disclaimer on the invitations, so they make sure to put it on their invitations. >> okay so i duplicate the file i would be okay with one file going forward >> and just to clarify, one file, again, as i mention, i'm okay with the vendor language put back in i don't know if you want to send that version to the full board >> we can't send it to the full board, then we have to send it back t the ethics commission we send it as is to the full board, i can live with i'm not totally happy with the way it's written, i can live with the vast majority of it and move it to recommendation then i would like the duplicate version stays in committee, that i hope we can

send back to ethics commission, for follow up restoring the language around vendors, i would like to delete the exemption for nonprofits as well, i will agree on, let's duplicate a file to committee, we can go back to ethics, and restore the language for vendors, we also take that motion without objection. i would like to motion that we strike the exemption for nonprofits, which is page four lineses 19-23, that we might have an agreement on are >> right, again i think it's going to be incredibly burden some, for nonprofits, to put this on their invitation, it might taint their event, to feature a speaker and have to put incredible -- a lot invitations are small, you will

have to put this 12 point font disclaimer, i don't support the nonprofit went for the vendor one. >> okay. mr. minority you have something else to add? >> thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this one thing i would clarify, which was brought up earlier, by the deputy attorney when we're talking about featuring prominently, i understood you are taking about a host committee, right? so you have a list of people so you would be, the real estate would be divvied up among the list of people, but if there is really one speaker, then that person, the entire cost would be allocated to that person apologize if i didn't make that clear. even the it's a

small reference, but it's only one candidate, the whole cost is attributed to that candidate, if there say list of candidates you divide it by whatever 6, 7, 8 whatever it is. i hope that makes sense and clarifies. >> thank you. so we have -- duplicate. we send one for registers, one to exit committee, we have restored the language for the vendor we don't have the votes to actually delete the exemption, i will withdraw my motion mr. john ston please come forward. >> i wanted to say briefly, thank for your attention to detail on that and sending the file to the board, it's important for supervisor breed to get the crux of it through for the 2015 election, i have two friends, running for the community college board, and the

process can be intimidating, i'm sure as you know complying with all this so it's important for her to get it through for 2015 and she prefer the nonprofit organization to be in there, it's not a hill to die on but i thank you for moving it forward. >> thank you. we will commit the item to ethics commission? is that automatically happen or keep it in committee? that's a question for mr. [inaudible] >> any amendments you make in committee, will be referred to >> great. we have put this item to the full board with recommendation. yay and next item please >> the duplicated file you need to the chair? >> yes. >> next item number three.

administrative code-daily calanders of elected officials and department heads include information about the identity, of people attending meetings or events. >> thank you. so this ordinance is going to add the board of supervisors to the public calendar requirement of the sunshine ordinance and to identify people attending their meetings with exceptions for privacy, such as whistle blower, in 1999, they approved the sunshine ordinance, which makes official calendar to official meetings for some reason the board of supervisors were not included to the public calendar

requirement, the grand jury, recommend the board take this objection, so we know where we are, as members of the board of supervisors, earlier this year the board voted against this because supervisors in dwoet quotes willingly disclose their calendar calendars, we're free to ignore public request for calendar i don't think we should be free, if the public is asking for calendars, we should provide though as a requirement. is a critical way to check lobbying activities if the public doesn't know who we're meeting with there is no way to verify lobbyists are accurately reporting when they meet with elected officials i understand this will create additional work for my staff my staff and i have already been working really hard to keep track of who we meet with we can adjust to the

process, of passing around a sign in sheet to the meetings, and adding the names to the calendars, since this time i introduced legislation in my office has kept track in the meetings, i think actually it helps me to really keep track of who i meet with and my commitments are to people when i do that. and we know that people have a great distrust for government and transparency helps the public to understand what we're doing, and helps to recreate the trust we often lose. so there is a great deal of need for legislation like this. especially when we look at other elected officials, like the mayor who are required to share their calendars, i have a couple amendments to the legislation, that address the

underlying questions, that some of my colleagues have had, ewith the knewence how we enact this legislation, and read those into the record. excuse me. so on page one, i have amendment to share. a copy to you supervisor tang. so on page one, i have a couple words here to line 24 on the page that says, the calendar shall identify the individual thes present, and we have the word disclosure and the word information as new. will reveal the i tenty of a confidential whistle blower. then we go on later, i will read

the whole section. will interfere with individual rights, and pe edition the government where the person has sought confidentiality, would adding the language would disclay. (audio cutting out) discuss matter within the scope of representation that representation has been defined, by the california government code. 30514, or disclosed from state law, we shawl disclose members, from the labor organization, we meet with as wl, that would require disclosure, the next section we're requiring for provide clarity for organizations, is line ten, page two. a large section, i will read. [reading] inside or outside of our